Northamptonshire Police officer drove at 106mph and lied to escape speeding prosecution
A former Northamptonshire Police special constable who drove at speeds reaching 106mph and dishonestly tried to escape prosecution would have been dismissed for gross misconduct had he not resigned.
Adam Jeskins repeatedly exceeded 100mph while driving a marked police vehicle on the M6 on October 5, 2024, despite having no proper policing reason to do so, a statement from Northamptonshire Police revealed.
He also drove at speed through motorway roadworks where a 50mph limit was in place to protect workers, and used the vehicle's blue lights and siren without justification, police said.
Four days later, Warwickshire Police issued a Notice of Intended Prosecution over an alleged speeding offence recorded at 10am during the journey, the statement added. When Jeskins responded on October 17, he sought a police exemption, claiming he had been travelling at 80mph as an enforcement speed in a marked traffic car.
A disciplinary panel found that claim was knowingly untrue and had been made to avoid criminal action.
Jeskins, who had been a member of a road safety team, resigned before his gross misconduct hearing, held virtually on October 7 and 8, 2026, police said. He did not attend.
The panel found breaches of professional standards covering orders and instructions, discreditable conduct, duties and responsibilities, and honesty and integrity.
It concluded his actions amounted to gross misconduct and that he would have been dismissed without notice had he remained a serving special constable.
In its findings, the panel said: "With regard to the speeding which reached in excess of 100 mph on 5 separate occasions in the journey, coupled with inappropriate use of sirens and blue-lights, the Panel finds that this was intentional and deliberate."
It added: "FSC Jeskins was a member of a road safety team and yet he chose to drive at excess speed through road works, in a section of the motorway where the speed limit had been reduced to 50 mph to protect workers."
The panel said he would have understood the potentially devastating consequences if anything had gone wrong.
It also found his dishonesty and misuse of his position risked damaging public confidence in policing.
The panel noted that although his actions were deliberate, there was no evidence they had been planned in advance. It described the case as serious.
The hearing concluded that his behaviour was sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal, even though he had already left the force.