A DETECTIVE retired days before an inquiry into her alleged gross misconduct over how she handled child sex abuse claims.

Detective Constable Celia MacDonald, of Sussex Police, is accused of failing to accurately record and investigate allegations of three children being sexually abused on April 14, 2016.

The claim was made by a 17-year-old girl who said her stepfather had “inappropriately touched his five-year-old stepdaughter” while changing her.

MacDonald, 49, who worked in the safeguarding investigations unit (SIU) at Horsham, retired from her role on Sunday in the knowledge the gross misconduct hearing was beginning at Sussex Police’s Lewes HQ today – and did not attend.

The teenager, known as female A, told a member of staff at her college about the man’s alleged inappropriate behaviour towards her and her stepsister, the inquiry heard.

The hearing panel, made up of Chief Superintendent Neil Honnor, chairwoman Alice Sims and independent member Helen Elliott, was told that a joint visit was made on the day of the abuse report by Sussex Police and Social Services, with MacDonald and PC Michelle Hayes, who was training to become a detective in the SIU.

Martin Forshaw, presenting the case for the force, said a multi-agency strategy meeting took place “with the local council, police and Social Services” to discuss how to handle the claims.

He added: “At the conclusion, a decision was made there would be a joint investigation by police and Social Services.

“Police take the lead for the criminal investigation, Social Services carrying out enquiries and look after the children’s welfare.”

While MacDonald and PC Hayes were at the house, the detective took notes while the trainee carried out the interview with female A and her cousin, a 16-year-old girl who also claimed the man touched parts of her body inappropriately and “hugged her too hard” at times. The five-year-old, known as female C, was not present when they visited.

Detective Inspector Jon Brydon, who is on secondment as head of safeguarding at West Sussex County Council, gave evidence in Lewes.

He said the correct procedure for MacDonald to follow would have been to record each allegation about each girl because of the nature of the claims.

MacDonald submitted the answers into the occurrence entry log at Crawley Police Station and informed her superior, Detective Sergeant Jonathan Pink, that there was “no clear disclosure”. In her report, MacDonald requested the case to be “filed away”, Mr Forshaw said.

The inquiry was told the case returned to MacDonald in May 2017 after no updates were recorded in it.

She made a phone call to PC Hayes to discuss the allegations, with the detective again saying there was “no clear disclosure”.

However, PC Hayes gave evidence at the hearing and disputed this claim but “could not recall” the exact exchange they had.

She also said she did not receive clear instructions about whether she was the officer in charge at the time.

PC Hayes claimed during the meeting with Social Services that MacDonald agreed to the authority carrying out a single-agency investigation.

The defence case says MacDonald’s role was unclear in the proceedings – whether she was the officer in charge – as she believed PC Hayes had taken control of it because she asked to conduct the interview.

On May 17 last year MacDonald made the decision to close the investigation – something that was beyond her powers – and should have been addressed by her superior, DS Pink, the inquiry heard.

The panel was told by Mr Forshaw that MacDonald’s “false account” of the phone call amounted to dishonesty, thus breaching professional standards.

Adam James, defending MacDonald, accepted his client “could have done more” to further investigate the allegations.

For this alleged gross misconduct charge, Mr Forshaw said MacDonald failed to act with integrity by not pursuing any other lines of inquiry. This was also said to breach professional standards, the solicitor said.

The panel was told that “experienced detectives” would have known this was not good practice and would have continued to investigate the case rather than close it.

During the hearing, Mr James branded the handling of the case as a “corporate failure”, saying colleagues should have been supervising her.

MacDonald faces three separate allegations.

They are: following the home visit, she failed to accurately record and investigate allegations of child sexual abuse.

The second claim is that she allowed allegations of sexual abuse to be conducted as a single agency investigation by Social Services with no police input.

Finally, MacDonald is accused of entering a false record on to an occurrence entry log on May 17, 2017, which provided an inaccurate representation of what took place on April 14, 2016. Mr Forshaw identified this as a breach of professional standards by being dishonest and acting with a lack of integrity.

Mr James said his client accepted misconduct for allegation one but not gross misconduct.

For the second allegation, it is argued MacDonald’s role in the investigation was not clear – whether she was the senior officer or not. The defence counsel accepted this as misconduct but, again, denied gross misconduct.

For the third allegation, Mr James said: “It is accepted (that Macdonald lacked integrity) on the basis that, perhaps, once she was approached 13 months later she should have done a bit more than making one phone call to her colleague.”

However, the aspect of dishonesty was disputed.

The inquiry is set to conclude tomorrow.