THE BIGGEST STORIES ACROSS BRISTOL IN YOUR INBOX SIGN UP Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

A special constable who failed a drug test has been cleared of gross misconduct after she "100 per cent" denied ever knowingly taking cannabis.

Hair and nail samples from Hannah Christer tested positive for THC-COOH, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, and she could offer no plausible explanation, a misconduct panel heard on Monday.

But she claimed she had a zero-tolerance approach to drugs and knew she could have been tested at any point.

Ms Christer was tested when she applied to become a regular warranted police officer with the constabulary and said she also faced random checks while working as driver for Tesco.

The panel accepted Ms Christer's emphatic denial of deliberately taking cannabis and cleared her of gross misconduct, saying hers were very specific circumstances that would not apply to others.

Ms Christer, who began training as a special constable in June 2016, told the hearing at the Avon and Somerset Police HQ in Portishead: "I one hundred per cent deny knowingly ingesting cannabis or smoking it but you have two scientific tests that suggest otherwise.

"I've not been able to give a plausible explanation as to why I tested positive.

"When I was training I knew you don't use illegal drugs. I have zero-tolerance to it.

"I didn't know when I would be tested. It could be at any time.

"[After the test] I got a letter saying I had been suspended because I had tested positive for cannabis. I couldn't believe it. I have never taken cannabis.

"I knew I was going to have a drug test. Why would I take illegal drugs?"

Ms Christer was accused of failing to meet police standards - going against policy on substance misuse and discrediting or undermining public confidence in the police.

Robert Talalay, the legal counsel at the misconduct hearing, said any officer who tested positive for drugs could plead ignorance - and accepting it would "put a coach and horses" through the whole process.

He said without a "verifiable rebuttal" - for example that she had been spiked with cannabis or had a medical reason to use it - the panel had to assume she was in possession of cannabis and had used it. As the drug is illegal, the charge amounted to gross misconduct, he said.

Mr Talalay told the panel it was at their discretion to conclude that Ms Christer’s exposure to cannabis was inadvertent.

But he added: "That would drive a coach and horses through the process. Any police officer would be able to say 'I was given a brownie by a friend'. It would fatally undermine the test."

After more than three hours of deliberation, chair Alex Lock said the misconduct panel accepted the drug test results but it also noted Ms Christer’s “emphatic” denial.

He said she knew she could have been tested at any time - and that if she failed she could miss out on becoming a police officer or lose her job.

Mr Lock said: “We find that both hair samples tested positive for THC-COOH - it had been processed by the body. It could have been by smoking cannabis, eating it, or by cross-contamination from close contact with a cannabis user.

“What the reports cannot say is how the THC-COOH came into SC Christer’s system, and whether it was innocently or otherwise.”

Concluding, Mr Lock added: “For there to be misconduct there needed to be two elements - first a positive drug test and secondly no reasonable explanation for that.

“A reasonable explanation may be a prescribed medical treatment, or innocence, or duress, for example. We didn’t see the second element [no reasonable explanation] being present.

“SC Christer hadn’t knowingly ingested cannabis and was therefore innocent of any misconduct.

“We didn’t consider that such an approach drove a coach and horses through the alcohol and drug misuse policy.

“We considered whether our decision would give licence to a mere denial by a guilty officer and didn’t think that would be the case.

“There were very particular features of this case that would not be open for most officers to argue.

“Our conclusion, therefore, is that SC Christer is not guilty of any misconduct.”