Police sergeant destroyed cancer sufferer's wigs in attack 'to maximise psychological harm', disciplinary told
James Evans vandalised a number of items in an act which a disciplinary hearing was told was cruelly designed to maximise the intended psychological harm' on his victim.
By TOM LAWRENCE, NEWS REPORTER
Published: 10:03 GMT, 11 January 2026 | Updated: 10:16 GMT, 11 January 2026
A police sergeant destroyed two wigs being used for cancer treatment in a 'deliberate and calculated' attack.
James Evans vandalised a number of items in an act which a disciplinary hearing was told was cruelly designed to maximise the intended psychological harm' on his victim.
The police sergeant was off duty when he 'destroyed' two wigs being used for cancer treatment as well as underwear, a laptop, a signed copy of a book by former motorbike racer Guy Martin and a lace hair accessory for a wedding all valued at around £3,000.
The 34-year-old from Manchester admitted a charge of criminal damage at Liverpool Magistrates' Court last July.
He was given a 12-month community order including 80 hours of unpaid work and 15 rehabilitation activity days and ordered to pay £1,000 in compensation.
His conviction also led to a disciplinary hearing at GMP, which took place on December 19 last year.
Evans resigned from his role just 24 hours before the hearing concluded he was guilty of gross misconduct.
He refused to attend the hearing and did not send anyone to argue his case.
Sergeant James Evans resigned from Greater Manchester Police a day before he would have been fired for gross misconduct
Chief constable Sir Stephen Watson crtiticised Evans for not appearing at his own misconduct hearing
Chief constable Sir Stephen Watson concluded that the misconduct was so serious that had Evans not resigned the day before, he would have been dismissed from the police service with immediate effect.
He stressed that officers should not be allowed to avoid accountability by disengaging from the misconduct proceedings, adding that the purpose of the hearings are to 'sustain public confidence in the police'.
The nature of the damage caused to the items was not given in the judgment.
The victim, referred to as person A, suffered 'distress' as a result of the vandalism.
Giving his summary in writing, Sir Stephen said: 'I, having heard the evidence, and having considered all of the information provided, have determined that the breaches alleged are proven and that they amount to gross misconduct.
'He now stands convicted of a criminal offence. His actions were deliberate and calculated. His training and experience ought to have served as a warning to him that his actions were patently unlawful, ill-judged and indefensible.
'Elements of his actions; aside from being criminal, were morally reprehensible and appeared cruelly designed to maximise the intended psychological harm upon Person A.