Oliver Fellowes
Introduction
Oliver Fellowes was a police constable with the Metropolitan Police, collar number P258832, who served at Charing Cross police station. On 5 October 2023 he sat the online sergeant’s promotion examination in the same small bedroom in which his friend and colleague PC Oluwaseye Olajide had taken the identical paper shortly before, beginning his own attempt just ten minutes after Olajide finished. In July 2026 a Metropolitan Police misconduct panel found that both men had attempted to gain an unfair advantage in breach of the standard of honesty and integrity, ruled the conduct gross misconduct, and concluded that Fellowes — who had already left the force by the time of the hearing — would have been dismissed had he still been serving.
Background Information
Fellowes served as a police constable with the Metropolitan Police at Charing Cross, and had around four years of service at the time of the conduct found proven. The sergeant’s examination is an online test that candidates must complete on their own, with no one else present in the room, and candidates sign declarations at the outset promising not to gain or attempt to gain any unfair advantage and not to help or accept help from anyone else during or after the exam. According to the panel, he arranged to sit the October 2023 exam alongside fellow Charing Cross officer Oluwaseye Olajide, who was dismissed over the same incident.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Misconduct findings, not criminal convictions. The findings below come from a Metropolitan Police misconduct panel chaired by former Commander Katie Lilburn, which found the allegations proven on the balance of probabilities. They are regulatory adjudications rather than court judgments, and no criminal charge was brought against either officer.
Fellowes shared the exam-day arrangement with Olajide, and the fuller account of the case is told on Oluwaseye Olajide’s page. On 5 October 2023 he remained in the small bedroom of a private residential address throughout Olajide’s exam, which began shortly after 10am and ran for around three hours. Ten minutes after Olajide finished, Fellowes began the same examination, with the questions presented in the exact same order, while Olajide stayed in the room for the whole of his sitting. During Olajide’s exam, Fellowes moved around the room at times and could have seen the questions on Olajide’s screen; Olajide admitted he might have read some questions aloud and consulted textbooks and notes, which the panel found would have given Fellowes advance warning of the topics arising. The panel concluded that the arrangement created a six-hour period in which each candidate had a potential assistant present, described it as “inherently unfair and unethical”, and found that while no actual, tangible advantage was proved, both men had attempted to gain an unfair advantage. Both had signed integrity declarations beforehand, which the panel found they had consciously and wilfully disregarded.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The case was heard at a public misconduct hearing from 6 to 8 July 2026, before a panel chaired by former Commander Katie Lilburn with panel members Yvonne Walsh and Karen Townsend. Fellowes did not attend and submitted no evidence; the panel, satisfied he was aware of the hearing and that it could proceed in his absence, ruled that his non-attendance was not to be regarded as an admission and decided there was a clear public interest in proceeding without unreasonable delay. It found the allegations against him proven on the agreed evidence, breached the standard of honesty and integrity, and identified aggravating factors including malign intent for personal gain, significant deviation from exam instructions, and role-model expectations. His conduct was found to amount to gross misconduct.
Current Status
Fellowes is a former police officer, having left the Metropolitan Police before the July 2026 hearing. Because he was no longer serving, the panel could only record a finding against him, and it concluded that he would have been dismissed had he still been a serving officer. The chair’s finding and outcome was published on the Metropolitan Police’s website in August 2026, and the case was reported by Misconduct999, which covers police misconduct proceedings.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Fellowes’s departure from the force preceded the hearing, so the gross misconduct finding was recorded as a determination that he would have been dismissed had he still been serving — a formal stain on his record even though the Met could no longer sack him. The panel found his culpability and the harm caused were both high, noting that a sergeant who had not genuinely qualified for the rank could not be trusted to give orders at that level, and weighed against him the aggravating factors of personal gain, significant deviation from exam instructions and role-model expectations, while recognising the conduct was of brief duration and crediting his four years of service.