Detective Inspector Ben Coogan, a 49‑year‑old officer with 26 years of service, was terminated for gross misconduct after a routine audit uncovered five naked pictures of a female colleague on his work‑issued mobile phone. the images , taken between May and July 2025, were stored on two separate police phones that Coogan claimed he intended only to review before deletion. The hearing chair, Commander Andy Brittain, ruled that using police equipment to capture and retain such images undermines public confidence and poses a risk of accidental distribution.

Five Explicit Images Found on Two Police Phones

The audit revealed that Coogan had saved five sexual images of a junior officer with whom he was romantically involved. Two separate work phones were used: one lost in July, which contained four images, and a second that held the fifth image. According to the report, the officer admitted to recording the pictures but insisted he never shared them with anyone else.

Commander Brittain Emphasises Public Trust and Risk of Accidental Release

Commander Andy Brittain, who chaired the hearing, said that using police‑issued devices for such purposes "erodes public trust, regardless of consent," and highlighted the danger that the images could be inadvertently transmitted to the public.. The panel noted that while storing the images on a personal device might not have reached the threshold for gross misconduct, the use of official police equipment elevated the offence.

Coogan’s Claim of Consent and Intent to Delete

Coogan maintained that the photos were taken consensually and that his intent was merely to review them before deletion. He also argued that he could not remove the first four images because he had lost the phone on which they were stored. The hearing panel found these explanations insufficient to mitigate the misconduct.

Dismissal and Permanent Ban from the Metropolitan Police

As a result of the findings , Coogan was not only dismissed but also barred from future service in the Metropolitan Police . The force has declined to comment further on the case, underscoring the strict standards expected of law enforcement personnel regarding the use of institutional resources.

Who Is the Unnamed Junior Colleague?

The source does not disclose the name of the junior officer involved, raising questions about the identity of the colleague and the potential impact on her career. The panel noted that the relationship was consensual and that the colleague was not under Coogan’s direct supervision, yet the use of police equipment made the misconduct unavoidable.