A police caller who tried to tip off her boyfriend about a drugs raid on his friend’s home has been jailed for 11 months.
Ellie-Mae Doherty, now 22, had only been working at Derbyshire Police for two months when she started accessing information and sending it to her boyfriend, who had a criminal record in 2023.
It wasn’t long before she tried to tell her boyfriend about a planned police raid on three of his friends’ homes.
But she was caught when investigators found a message to an employee on her boyfriend’s phone that said, “My bird who works at the Ripley Police Department went to work and texted me to call ‘Stirch’ but was five minutes late.”
Doherty, who admitted misconduct in public office and failing to inform her superiors of criminal connections, was 19 when she started as a call handler for the force.
Leicester Crown Court heard she was recommended for the role by her friend Jessica Fitzhugh, also now 22, who had started the same job eight months earlier.
Ellie-Mae Doherty, 22, had only been working for Derbyshire Police for three months when she started accessing information and sending it to her boyfriend, who had a criminal record
Mrs Doherty was just 19 when she started working as a telephone handler at Derbyshire police station.
Fitzhugh, from Belper, Derbyshire, also had a boyfriend involved in crime and appeared in the dock alongside her former boyfriend.
She previously admitted accessing unauthorized material on police systems and taking a photo of the data, but pleaded not guilty to misconduct in public office.
She was today sentenced to four months in prison, with Judge Timothy Spencer KC, the Recorder of Leicester, ruling that the more serious charge should be on her record.
Both women were accompanied to court by their families and there were sobs in the public gallery as the judge handed them immediate prison sentences.
The judge said: ‘This is probably the saddest day of your life. I’m sure this is also the saddest day for your family, friends and everyone who supports you. It is very sad that it has come to this.’
He said he took no pleasure in jailing the “naïve” couple but said the case was “exceptional” and a deterrent sentence was necessary.
Prosecutor Helen Rodger told the court: “They were both asked if they were associated with anyone with criminal convictions, cautions or were involved in criminal activity. Both answered no and signed a statement.’
Both had also undergone anti-corruption training, during which they were explicitly told that they could only access information for police purposes.
The prosecutor said both of the women’s boyfriends had criminal convictions and that they knew others involved in crime, including a young man named Aiden Cope, also known as Stirch.
Both women were investigated by anti-corruption detectives and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) after allegations were made.
The prosecutor said the first misuse of the police computer took place in December 2023 when Doherty, from Ripley, Derbyshire, sent a message to her boyfriend, named in court as Mr Braddock, about a fight involving his associates which resulted in a window being smashed.
Jessica Fitzhugh, from Belper, Derbyshire, also had a boyfriend involved in crime and appeared in the dock alongside her former friend
Fitzhugh had accessed classified information for a ‘non-police purpose’ five times between February and April 2024
Three months later, she discovered through the police system that search warrants were being executed at three addresses of her boyfriend’s associates.
Investigators discovered she had viewed the details three times in 32 minutes and then accessed an online system to check who was currently in custody.
The prosecutor told the court: ‘A message sent to an employee on Braddock’s phone read: ‘My bird who works at the Ripley Police Department went to work and texted me to call ‘Stirch’ but was five minutes late. Not found, I don’t think yet. There’s no good search attic there.’
She added: ‘Her intention was to tip off Cope and she accepts that she informed Braddock that Cope was in custody.’
Ms Rodger said Fitzhugh had looked at classified information five times between February and April 2024 for a ‘non-police purpose’.
The Crown accepted it was out of ‘idle curiosity’ and focused on her then boyfriend and his associates, offering no evidence she had passed on anything.
But she said: ‘It is a gross breach of trust when you look at information about members of the public in the police systems. She was in a position of public trust and had received four months of training.”
Defending Fitzhugh, Liz Power said her client had acted out of ‘naivety’: ‘She has let herself and her family down. She quickly realized that her boyfriend, whom she had been with for less than three months, was not a positive influence and she examined his character.’
Defending Doherty, Lowri Butterworth said her client was unaware of her then-boyfriend’s criminality when she signed the police document, saying she had no criminal associates, but she should have let police know later.
“She was completely reckless in the way she behaved and what she did,” she added. “She was proud of the job she got in law enforcement.”
In sentencing, the judge said: ‘If public confidence is to be maintained, it is vital that information is properly controlled and made accessible.’
Calling their then boyfriends ‘undesirable’, he added: ‘It was made very clear to you that you were not to associate with people with criminal tendencies and that this was an ongoing duty. You have signed statements to this effect. Unfortunately, you ignored those statements.”
He said Doherty’s offense was more serious because she passed it on with the intention of disrupting a live police investigation.
He reduced both women’s sentences by more than half by giving them credit for their guilty pleas, their age and “heavy personal mitigation.”
“You are both impressive young women who have impacted so many people in your lives, and the letters they have sent to me speak so highly of you.
‘You will undoubtedly be haunted by what you did for the rest of your life and it will affect your prospects for years to come.’
But after reducing both sentences to less than a year, he added: ‘But this is an exceptional case and it gives me no pleasure to say that the only appropriate sentence is that of immediate detention.’
