Detective constable Katy Sergeant was found to have used so-called "key-jamming" to make it appear she was doing police work when she was actually studying for an exam.

Evidence found the officer intentionally used the tactic for almost 20 hours on three dates between March and June 2025.

She resigned from her position with the force before a misconduct hearing into her behaviour was held last month.

The former detective resigned before being subject to misconduct hearing (pic posed) (Image: Newsquest)

Key-jamming has become an issue with the rise in remote working and involves objects being placed on the computer keyboard to register it being in continual use and stop it showing as “inactive”.

A number of police officers in forces across the country have been sacked or resigned after being found to have used it while on-duty.

In evidence to the disciplinary panel the former detective admitted she had not asked her supervisor if she could study for a sergeant exam and College of Policing learning for front line detectives while working from home.

She had continued to respond to work emails and messages and had never left the force-issued laptop unattended, she said.

She denied accusations that she had been “gaming the system” and that her actions had been “deception”.

When asked why she had done it, she told the panel “because I genuinely didn’t think it was anything more than an efficient way”.

Her former supervisor, who also gave evidence, told the panel she had always been up to date with her work, well prepared and had been involved in “difficult sensitive cases requiring careful and diligent work with victims of crime”.

The disciplinary panel concluded her behaviour amounted to misconduct but said no further action would be taken, noting that she had shown “genuine remorse”.

It decided not to determine what further action it would have taken had she still been a serving officer, including whether she would have been sacked.

“During the periods of key-jamming you were using time doing unauthorised activities instead of progressing police work,” its report stated.

Though she had “undertaken her own private non-work-related activity whilst being paid at the expense of the public purse”, evidence from her bank account indicated she was not out shopping, socialising or buying things online at the time.

However, the panel said that “key-jamming and not doing the right thing the actions would likely undermine public confidence in policing”.

The disciplinary hearing heard the officer faked working on three occasions (Image: Newsquest)

It said her behaviour had also “risked exposing” the constabulary’s digital network to compromise, though this risk had been low.

However, it dismissed claims by the force that the time she had been paid for - but faked working - had equated to a financial loss of over £667,000, determining was that there was "no accurate quantifiable loss".

It is the latest in a series of police misconduct claims of dishonesty to involve Norfolk officers amid public concern and increased scrutiny in the wake of a number of high profile policing scandals.

Previous cases have included an officer who was sacked after being found to have lied when she claimed a deer had caused her to crash on the A11 while another PC was dismissed for dishonest overtime claims.

Last month Norfolk Police refused to name a disgraced officer sacked for paying for prostitutes at Thai massage parlours despite having previously been given a warning over involvement with sex workers.

It is easy to dismiss these Norfolk police misconduct cases as minor embarrassments.

One officer using a bottle of nail varnish to fake activity while working from home, while another paid for sex workers.

But the real issue isn’t the misconduct itself. It’s how selectively transparent policing has become.

A former detective constable admitted “key-jamming” to appear active while studying on duty.

A panel found her actions could undermine public confidence - yet she resigned, and no clear sanction followed.

Contrast that with “PC Y”, who was sacked for paying for sex workers after prior warnings.

In his case, the public is told what he did - but not who he is.

That contradiction matters.

Policing relies on public trust, and trust depends on openness. Naming officers found guilty of misconduct isn’t about shaming - it’s about accountability. It shows the rules apply equally.

Instead, we’re seeing a system that reveals just enough to reassure, but not enough to fully scrutinise.

Anonymity was granted in the sex worker case partly over mental health concerns. But many professions face public accountability under pressure.

Police should not be uniquely shielded.

Even the officer’s wife cut through the legal framing. If he didn’t want to be known, he shouldn’t have done it.

Each decision may be defensible on its own. Together, they risk creating the impression that police operate under different rules. And that perception - more than any single scandal - is what quietly erodes public confidence.

Therefore, it is up to Chief Constable Paul Sandford to make sure officers in his force are accountable to the public.

Trust is what is key.

© Eastern Daily Press