Detective Constable Fred Itiose hid from superiors that the case he was involved in concluded three days earlier.
When challenged by his boss, Itiose claimed to be awaiting instructions from the court that he was needed again on the Friday.
He accepted breaching standards of professional behaviour in respect of honesty and integrity at a misconduct hearing.
Although a panel found his lies in March this year amounted to gross misconduct, Itiose was not operational dishonest and given a final written warning which will remain in place for five years.
Itiose denied an assertion that what he produced working for home equated to only half a day’s work. The officer maintains he was experiencing an intense crisis of his personal circumstances at the time.
Assistant Commissioner Barbara Gray, who chaired the misconduct hearing last Wednesday, said: “He alone made the decision to mislead his supervisor in relation to the timings of the court.
“He made the decision to work from home without advising or requesting permission to work from home, from a supervisor.
“He further indicated that he was waiting for a call from the court in relation to his further attendance on the Friday of that week.
“At that time, all parties involved were aware that the case had concluded on the Monday of that week.
“However, against this, it was agreed by both parties that the officer’s actions do not constitute operational dishonesty and I therefore proceed on that basis.
“Furthermore, I am satisfied that DC Itiose’s initial decision to mislead his supervisor was a spur of the moment decision, which was not premeditated, although this has to be balanced against… DC Itiose chose to continue his lie over a number of days.”
Several officers provided glowing character references.
Itiose made open admissions and repeatedly apologised. He said the incident took place against a background of personal stress.
But AC Barbara Gray added: “The public expect police officers to uphold high standards. Dishonesty by a police officer, by intentionally misleading another officer, who is a supervisor, is likely to have a detrimental effect on the trust and confidence in the police, in this case namely the Metropolitan Police Service.”