CHARLIE ELLIOTT LEICESTER POLICE COMPUTER CRACKDOWN AND DOMESTIC DISPUTE
| Red Rose Database
Leicester Domestic Abuser
Charlie Elliott, a 36-year-old former special constable and civilian police operator based in Leicester, has been found guilty of serious misconduct involving unauthorized access to police computer systems and a subsequent domestic assault. The incident unfolded when Elliott, who was on long-term sick leave at the time, accessed sensitive crime data on December 13 of the previous year, specifically targeting information about criminal activity in the Beaumont Leys area of Leicester.
During the court hearing at Leicester Magistrates’ Court, Elliott admitted to the charges of unauthorized access to police systems. His legal representative explained that Elliott’s motive for breaching the police database was driven by a desire to monitor crime levels in his ex-wife’s neighborhood, ostensibly to safeguard his children. However, this breach of trust and misuse of police resources was deemed a serious violation of protocol and security.
The court also heard about a separate, violent incident involving Elliott and his ex-wife, which took place shortly after the database breach. On December 19, at their three-year-old daughter’s school in Braunstone, Leicester, Elliott arrived claiming he needed to take his daughter for a medical appointment. The school staff, upon contacting his ex-wife, were instructed not to allow him to take the child. Despite this, Elliott proceeded to the school premises, where he swore at his ex-wife and declared his intention to take their daughter against her wishes. The situation escalated until her father intervened, managing to remove Elliott from the scene and prevent further conflict.
In response to these events, the magistrates imposed a six-month restraining order, forbidding Elliott from contacting or visiting his ex-wife. Additionally, he was ordered to pay fines and costs totaling £460, which covered penalties related to both the assault and the unauthorized computer access. The chair of the bench described the incident as 'unfortunate and unpleasant,' emphasizing that the presence of children could have made the situation far worse. She also acknowledged that Elliott’s mental health had been significantly impacted by the upheaval of losing contact with his children, and noted that he was previously considered to be of good character.
Ultimately, the court opted for a financial penalty rather than a community order, reflecting the seriousness of the breaches and the domestic disturbance. The case highlights the potential consequences of misuse of police resources and the importance of safeguarding family relationships amidst personal turmoil.
During the court hearing at Leicester Magistrates’ Court, Elliott admitted to the charges of unauthorized access to police systems. His legal representative explained that Elliott’s motive for breaching the police database was driven by a desire to monitor crime levels in his ex-wife’s neighborhood, ostensibly to safeguard his children. However, this breach of trust and misuse of police resources was deemed a serious violation of protocol and security.
The court also heard about a separate, violent incident involving Elliott and his ex-wife, which took place shortly after the database breach. On December 19, at their three-year-old daughter’s school in Braunstone, Leicester, Elliott arrived claiming he needed to take his daughter for a medical appointment. The school staff, upon contacting his ex-wife, were instructed not to allow him to take the child. Despite this, Elliott proceeded to the school premises, where he swore at his ex-wife and declared his intention to take their daughter against her wishes. The situation escalated until her father intervened, managing to remove Elliott from the scene and prevent further conflict.
In response to these events, the magistrates imposed a six-month restraining order, forbidding Elliott from contacting or visiting his ex-wife. Additionally, he was ordered to pay fines and costs totaling £460, which covered penalties related to both the assault and the unauthorized computer access. The chair of the bench described the incident as 'unfortunate and unpleasant,' emphasizing that the presence of children could have made the situation far worse. She also acknowledged that Elliott’s mental health had been significantly impacted by the upheaval of losing contact with his children, and noted that he was previously considered to be of good character.
Ultimately, the court opted for a financial penalty rather than a community order, reflecting the seriousness of the breaches and the domestic disturbance. The case highlights the potential consequences of misuse of police resources and the importance of safeguarding family relationships amidst personal turmoil.