A PSNI officer who bought items to enhance his security following a data breach has been acquitted of a charge of fraud by abuse of position.
Kaelum Lappin (26), with an address listed as PSNI headquarters, had faced a charge of ‘fraud by abuse of position’.
The full details of the charge were: ‘Defendant between the 30th day of January 2024 and the 29th day of January 2025 whilst occupying a position in which you were expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of your employer, dishonestly abused that position in that having applied for and received £500 under the PSNI Universal Offer Scheme for reimbursement of money you purported to have paid out for security equipment, in fact you had cancelled the said equipment order and received a refund for same on 28th December 2023 and did not declare this to your employer, with the intention, by means of the abuse of that position to make a gain for yourself or another or to cause loss to your employer or to expose your employer to a risk of a loss, in breach of section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 contrary to Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006’.
He contested the charge at Craigavon Magistrates’ Court on Friday.
The police brought in the Universal Offer Scheme, offering £500 to officers and staff affected by a data breach in 2023.
The scheme was for staff to take steps regarding their security following the data breach.
The defendant bought cameras and security lights and submitted a receipt to his employers.
However, he then returned the equipment to the shop because, he said, it was not compatible with existing equipment.
The money was sent back to his credit card from the outlet where he bought the items.
He subsequently received money from his employers as part of the scheme.
He did not inform the finance department of the updated position and he said he regretted that.
He told the court: “At the time I was acting on good faith on the knowledge of the guidance that was available to us. I didn’t believe I was doing anything wrong. I had full intention to go on and purchase other items which I then did and I had no dishonest intention at any point”.
He said he bought a ringdoor bell, a dashcam system and an iPhone as an upgrade to a phone he had so he could view his camera app better.
He also bought “Wellington boots and work trousers” for use in travelling to and from a police station “to adopt a different outlook on my identity which I felt was totally a necessity at that point”.
The Wellington boots were £55 and the work trousers were £83.
He said the clothing was to “create a new identity for myself” to make him look like a “builder or a farmer” to put people “off the scent” that he was a police officer.
He said he bought a hose for a power washer to clean security cameras.
He had not submitted receipts for reimbursement in relation to those items.
The officer told the court: “I had no dishonest intention at any point. If anything, this entire situation is a misunderstanding and I fully recognise, that on reflection, I should have informed finance branch that I had gone on to buy various other items and that is something I very much regret but I had no dishonest intentions at any point”.
A defence lawyer said all the items bought by the officer “greatly exceeded the £500 so one can easily see how he drew the conclusion that he was not acting in any way dishonestly by not notifying of the return”.
He said the officer had no convictions and a “person of good character” and his career as a police officer meant it was “more likely” he was telling the truth when he said he was not acting dishonestly.
The lawyer said a “court could never be sure of dishonesty in these circumstances and we would invite you to acquit him”.
District Judge Michael Ranaghan said the prosecution was required to prove “that the defendant acted with dishonest intent at some stage before, during or after the defendant submitted his claim and was ultimately reimbursed for it”.
The judge said: “I do not find that he had a dishonest intent at any stage during the timeframe”.
He said the defendant was an “impressive” witness.
The judge said he believed the defendant “made a mistake or a series of mistakes rather than acting with dishonest intent at any stage”.
Dismissing the charge against the defendant, he added: “I accept Mr Lappin’s evidence that he did make mistakes but mistakes do not amount to a crime.”
