🔴 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT UPDATE
Last Updated: 26 February 2026
Following a formal misconduct hearing, the Metropolitan Police Service confirmed that former officer Stanley Kennett was dismissed after findings of gross misconduct linked to an unauthorised business interest involving The Coffee Cycle in Storrington, West Sussex.
The panel determined that the conduct amounted to a breach of professional standards. The case may now proceed to consideration for inclusion on the College of Policing Barred List.
On 26 February 2026, a misconduct panel concluded proceedings involving a Metropolitan Police officer connected to a coffee business in Storrington, West Sussex. According to the official misconduct outcome summary published by the Metropolitan Police Service, the officer Stanley Kennett was dismissed after findings of gross misconduct linked to an unauthorised business interest.
The case, formally recorded in the Metropolitan Police misconduct outcome summary (published by the Metropolitan Police Service), centres on involvement in a company known as The Coffee Cycle, director’s loans, and failures relating to disclosure obligations.
This article explains the confirmed findings, what “gross misconduct” means in UK policing, how the police barred list works, and what lessons employers and professionals can take from the case.
Why was Stanley Kennett sacked from the Met Police?
Stanley Kennett was dismissed after a misconduct panel found that his involvement in The Coffee Cycle constituted an unauthorised business interest and a breach of professional standards. The panel concluded that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and discreditable conduct, justifying dismissal from the Metropolitan Police Service.
Who Is Stanley Kennett?
Stanley Kennett was a serving officer with the Metropolitan Police Service. His case became subject to formal misconduct proceedings following concerns about his involvement in a coffee business.
The company in question, The Coffee Cycle, was incorporated in Storrington, West Sussex. During the investigation, attention focused on:
- The officer’s role in the business
- Financial arrangements, including director’s loans
- Whether proper disclosure had been made
- Whether approval had been granted
The misconduct hearing determined that required approvals had not been properly secured and that professional standards had been breached.
The Business Involvement: What Was The Coffee Cycle?
The Coffee Cycle was a registered company operating in West Sussex. As part of the investigation, scrutiny included:
- Incorporation records
- Directorship status
- Financial interests
- Director’s loans
- Whether the activity amounted to an unauthorised business interest
Police officers are permitted to hold certain outside interests but only with formal approval and transparency.
In this case, the panel found that the officer’s involvement breached the regulatory framework governing secondary employment.
What Is an “Unauthorised Business Interest” in UK Policing?
An unauthorised business interest arises when a police officer engages in outside employment, directorship, or financial activity without:
- Formal written disclosure
- Approval from senior command
- Compliance with force policy
The Standards of Professional Behaviour require officers to:
- Act with honesty and integrity
- Avoid conflicts of interest
- Prevent discreditable conduct
- Protect public confidence
Failure to comply may amount to gross misconduct.
How Did the Misconduct Hearing Reach Its Decision?
The hearing process typically includes:
- Professional Standards Department investigation
- Evidence review
- Referral to misconduct panel
- Public hearing
- Tribunal ruling
In this case, the panel concluded that the conduct constituted gross misconduct and warranted dismissal. The decision may also lead to referral for inclusion on the police barred list, administered by the College of Policing.
What Is Gross Misconduct?
Gross misconduct in policing refers to conduct so serious that dismissal would be justified.
Common examples include:
- Dishonesty
- Abuse of authority
- Conflicts of interest
- Unauthorised business interests
- Discreditable conduct
It is important to distinguish between:
| Category | Meaning |
| Misconduct | Serious breach requiring warning |
| Gross Misconduct | Breach serious enough to justify dismissal |
| Criminal Conviction | Separate legal process |
The Stanley Kennett Met Police case concerns employment and professional standards not necessarily criminal conviction.
Suspension on Full Pay and Employment Process
In many serious cases, officers may be placed on suspension on full pay while investigations are ongoing. Suspension does not imply guilt; it is a procedural safeguard.
Following the tribunal ruling, dismissal may occur with or without notice depending on severity.
How the Police Barred List Works?
The College of Policing maintains a barred list of individuals dismissed for gross misconduct.
If placed on the barred list:
- The individual cannot work for any UK police force
- The restriction applies nationally
- The decision follows review procedures
For employers outside policing, this system demonstrates structured regulatory oversight and professional accountability.
Lessons for Employers: Managing Moonlighting and Side Businesses
For London businesses and HR leaders, this case provides valuable insight into managing “moonlighting” or unauthorised side-hustles.
1. Clear Disclosure Policies
Employers should require employees to declare:
- Directorships
- Incorporation of companies
- Financial interests
- Director’s loans
2. Conflict of Interest Assessments
Assess whether secondary work:
- Competes with the employer
- Uses confidential knowledge
- Damages reputation
3. Written Approval Systems
Formal approval processes protect both employer and employee.
4. Documented Policies
Employment contracts should explicitly address:
- Secondary employment
- Disciplinary consequences
- Discreditable conduct
The Metropolitan Police framework mirrors best practice corporate governance structures.
Real-World Example for Business Owners
Imagine a senior manager in a financial firm launches a consultancy without declaring it. Even if lawful, the risk arises where:
- Clients overlap
- Insider information could be perceived to be used
- The reputation of the employer is affected
The legal risk is not just operational it may lead to dismissal for breach of professional standards. The Stanley Kennett Met Police case illustrates how failure to disclose can escalate into serious employment consequences.
Public Trust and Transparency
The Metropolitan Police publishes misconduct outcomes to maintain transparency.
While such cases may raise concern, structured hearings, published rulings, and barred list processes demonstrate regulatory accountability.
This transparency supports public confidence in policing and organisational governance.
Key Takeaways from the Stanley Kennett Met Police Case
| Area | Confirmed Finding | Wider Implication |
| Business Activity | Involvement in The Coffee Cycle | Outside interests require approval |
| Financial Links | Director’s loans examined | Transparency is essential |
| Standards Breach | Gross misconduct | Integrity central to policing |
| Outcome | Dismissal | Employment consequence |
| Barred List | Potential referral | National restriction |
Conclusion
The Stanley Kennett Met Police case, concluded on 26 February 2026, reinforces a central principle in both policing and business: transparency matters.
Unauthorised business interests, even when not criminal, can constitute gross misconduct if they breach disclosure rules and undermine trust.
For UK employers and professionals, the message is clear robust governance, formal approval systems, and documented policies are not administrative burdens. They are safeguards.
FAQs
What is considered an unauthorised business interest in UK policing?
It is any outside employment, directorship, or financial activity undertaken without formal disclosure and approval from the relevant police force.
Does gross misconduct automatically mean criminal prosecution?
No. Gross misconduct is an employment classification. Criminal prosecution would involve separate legal proceedings.
What are director’s loans and why might they matter?
Director’s loans refer to money taken from or provided to a company by a director. In misconduct cases, they may indicate financial involvement requiring disclosure.
Can suspension on full pay imply wrongdoing?
No. Suspension is a neutral procedural step while investigations are conducted.
What is discreditable conduct?
Discreditable conduct refers to behaviour that damages the reputation of the police service, even if it occurs outside official duties.
How does the College of Policing barred list affect employment?
Individuals placed on the barred list cannot work in UK policing roles in the future.
Should private companies restrict employees from running businesses?
Many organisations allow side businesses but require formal disclosure and conflict-of-interest review to protect reputation and legal compliance.