“An officer will always be part of failure, it does not always mean the officer is the failure… the Government’s changes to the police misconduct processes are small minded and barbaric.”

1 September 2023

Cleveland Police Federation Conduct and Performance Lead Paul Crowley looks at the proposed significant changes to the police officer dismissal process.

“The Home Office has announced multiple, significant changes to the police officer dismissal process, following a four-month review.

“Under the new system, a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in a police officer’s dismissal, unless exceptional circumstances apply. Chief constables will return to chairing misconduct panels and will be handed greater powers to decide whether officers should be dismissed and will be given a right to challenge decisions.

“Legally qualified chairs (LQCs) have been removed from their position and will instead be legally qualified persons (LQPs), providing independent advice. The outcome will be determined by a majority panel.

“I have already spoken upon my concerns for the vetting process within the high court ruling of Victor v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police and highlighted how provisions exist within the Vetting APP that authorises Chief Constables to dismiss officers without going through any misconduct process, circumventing conduct regulations, and opening a backdoor to dismiss officers at a whim.

“This decision takes that ruling a step further.

“Officers have the absolute right to a fair and transparent disciplinary process that ensures individual bias cannot govern or influence decisions which have profound consequences on their career and wellbeing.

“Misconduct proceedings are based upon a far lower burden of proof than exercised in criminal courts, namely the “balance of probabilities”. Therefore, an officer could be completely exonerated within a criminal court, yet still face questions of gross misconduct based upon this lower standard, which is often the case.

“In its current guise, if there is sufficient evidence that the conduct of the officer amounts to gross misconduct and it is in the public interest for that officer to cease to be a police officer without delay, then Chief Constables already have the power to immediately dismiss that officer.

“It naturally followed therefore, if sufficient evidence did not exist, an independent process was engaged to ensure the correct outcomes were achieved. It is this independent process that is due to be reformed, with Chief Constables at the heart of the decision-making process and circumnavigating any independence which once existed.

“Without careful guidance, this could be a huge step backwards, into a time where guilt was presumed by all; from the investigator to the chairperson, with one single goal in mind: To protect the organisation at all costs.

“Recent high-profile cases show that a small minority of police officers have let down policing, the public and the responsibilities entrusted with them every day. It is correct that if an officer breaches the standards of professional behaviour so seriously that dismissal is appropriate, then they should be dismissed.

“However, herein lies the question: How do we know dismissal is appropriate in the circumstances?

“Currently, there are three stages to determining an appropriate sanction:

1. Assess the seriousness of the misconduct.
2. Keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions.
3. Choose a sanction that most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.

“The decision maker will then assess the seriousness of the conduct by referencing the officer’s culpability for the misconduct, the harm caused and the existence of any aggravating factors or mitigating factors.

“What if an officer acts in good faith that they are pursuing a legitimate purpose for their decisions, but gets it wrong? What if mental health, disability, medical condition, or stress affected that officer’s ability to cope with the situation? What if an officer is required to act outside of their level of experience, or without appropriate training? An officer will always be part of failure, it does not always mean the officer is the failure.

“It is for this reason that I believe the Government’s decision to impose an ‘automatic’ dismissal policy is both small minded and barbaric. The word automatic is defined as: “done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or attention” which, when coupled with such a low standard of proof and an absence of independent oversight is grossly alarming, unfair and seeks only to limit opportunities for progression and learning, both organisationally and individually.

“By blindly dismissing those found guilty of gross misconduct, a genuine risk exists of creating a blame culture which is highly divisive and destructive for any professional organisation.

“The Government’s position is clear, Chief Constables may now have the absolute power to dismiss those accused of gross misconduct and, even if not proven, can still remove that officer through vetting procedures.

“Policing is on the precipice of change, and progression always begins in the wake and acceptance of failure. I therefore urge Chief Constables to recognise the uncomfortable position the Government has placed them in and to promote a landscape of learning, when assessing any alleged conduct against their officers.”