There must be more to this, right?
The chap has been sent to prison for nearly 3 years for having a shag on work time - that's it.
No suggestion that the sex was not consensual or otherwise illegal, although I did note the repeated hints that the woman involved was "vulnerable." Physically or mentally disabled perhaps? Well, disabled people have sex too, you know, so why would that make it not OK?
The man should have got a right bollocking or maybe even been busted in rank (or whatever they do in the police internal disciplinary measures) but saying that a quickie on the job amounts to misconduct in a public office is a big stretch, in my opinion.
From the CPS website, they describe the elements of the offence as
a) A public officer acting as such.
b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
I'd say that c) is the missing element in this case, but others with more prim views might disagree. Nevertheless, the CPS advice continues
A charge of misconduct in public office should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or deliberate failure to perform a duty which is likely to injure the public interest.
This case doesn't seem to be a good fit for that description, especially when compared to high profile incidents at the G20 protests. And when all's said and done, he's been locked up for 32 months (that's with reduction for pleading guilty too!) for having a quickie on company time: totally disproportionate.
I suspect that this guy, like Stephen Mitchell last year, has been witch-hunted for some other reason entirely.
Forums 
