A police call handler who tried to tip off her boyfriend about a drugs raid on his friend's house has been jailed for 11 months.

Ellie-Mae Doherty, 22, had only been with Derbyshire Police for three months when she began to access information and send it to her boyfriend who had a criminal record.

Before long, she had tried to tell her boyfriend about a planned police raid on three houses belonging to his friends.

But she was caught out when investigators found a message on her boyfriend's phone to an associate, saying: 'My bird who works at Ripley police got into work and texted me to ring "Stirch" but was five minutes too late.'

Doherty, who admitted misconduct in public office and failing to tell her superiors about her connections to criminals, was just 19 when she began a job as a call handler at Derbyshire Police headquarters.

A sentencing hearing at Leicester Crown Court heard that she had been recommended for the role by her friend Jessica Fitzhugh, also now 22, who had started the same job eight months earlier.

Fitzhugh, from Belper, Derbyshire, also had a boyfriend involved in criminality and appeared in the dock alongside her one-time friend.

She previously admitted accessing unauthorised material on police systems and taking a picture of the data, but pleaded not guilty to misconduct in public office. 

She was today sentenced to four months in prison, with Judge Timothy Spencer KC, the recorder of Leicester, ruling that the more serious charge should lie on her file.

Both women were accompanied to court by their families and there were sobs in the public gallery when the Judge served them with immediate imprisonment.

Passing sentence, the judge said: 'This is probably the saddest day of your lives. I am sure it is also the saddest day of your family, friends and all those who support you. That it has come to this is very, very sad indeed.'

He said that it gave him no pleasure to jail the 'naive' pair who were both just 19 at the time of their offences, but said the case was 'exceptional' and that a deterrent sentence was necessary.

Prosecutor Helen Rodger told the court: 'They were both asked if they associated with anyone with criminal convictions, cautions or engaged in criminal activities. Both answered no and signed a declaration.'

Both had also gone through counter-corruption training in which they were explicitly informed they could only access information for a policing purpose.

The prosecutor said that both the women's boyfriends had criminal convictions and they knew others involved with crime including a young man called Aiden Cope, also known as Stirch.

Both women were investigated by anti-corruption detectives and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) after allegations were made.

The prosecutor said the first misuse of the police computer occurred in December 2023 when Doherty, from Ripley, Derbyshire, sent a message to her boyfriend, named in court as a Mr Braddock, about a fight involving his associates in which a window was smashed.

Three months later she discovered through the police system that search warrants were being executed at three addresses belonging to her boyfriend's associates.

Investigators discovered she had looked at the details three times in 32 minutes, then opened up an online system to check who was currently in custody.

The prosecutor told the court: 'A message sent to an associate on Braddock's phone read: "My bird who works at Ripley police got into work and texted me to ring 'Stirch' but was five minutes too late. Not found f*** all I don't think yet. Proper search loft nothing up there".'

She added: 'It was her intention to tip off Cope and she accepts that she did communicate to Braddock that Cope was in custody.'

Ms Rodger said that Fitzhugh had looked at classified information for a 'non-policing purpose' on five separate occasions between February and April 2024.

The Crown accepted that it was out of 'idle curiosity' and centred on her then-boyfriend and his associates and they offered no evidence she had passed anything on.

But she said: 'It is a gross breach of trust to be viewing information held on police systems about members of the public.

'She was in a position of public trust and had been given four months of training.'

Defending Fitzhugh, Liz Power said her client had acted out of 'naivety', adding: 'She has let herself and her family down. She soon realised her boyfriend who she'd been with less than three months was not a positive influence and she was looking into his character.'

Defending Doherty, Lowri Butterworth said her client had been unaware of her then boyfriend's criminality when she signed the police document saying she did not have criminal associates but should have let the force know subsequently.

'She was completely reckless in the way she behaved and what she did,' she added. 

'She was proud of the job she got with the police.'

In his sentencing, the judge said: 'It is vital that if public confidence is to be maintained that information is properly controlled and accessed.'

He referred to their then-boyfriends as 'undesirables', adding: 'It was made very clear to you that you should have no association with people with criminal tendencies and that this was an ongoing duty. You signed declarations to that effect.

'Regrettably you flouted those declarations.'

He said that Doherty's offending was more serious because she had passed it on with the intention of disrupting a live police inquiry.

He reduced both women's sentences by more than a half by giving them credit for their guilty pleas, their age and 'weighty personal mitigation'.

'You are both impressive young women who have impressed so many people in your lives and the letters they have sent me speak so highly of you.

'You will no doubt be haunted by what you did for the rest of your lives and it will impact your prospects for years to come.'

But having reduced both the sentences to under a year, he added: 'But this is an exceptional case and it gives me no pleasure to say that the only appropriate sentence is one of immediate custody.'