The erosion of discretion and the Police Appeals Tribunal crisis

7 October 2026

Dave Hadley, West Midlands Police Federation co-lead for conduct, gives his views.

There are two significant problems with the current disciplinary framework: the presumption of dismissal in misconduct hearings and the apparent paralysis within the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) system stemming from an unresolved indemnity issue affecting PAT chairs.

The presumption of dismissal and the erosion of independent decision-making

A central feature of the misconduct regulatory amendments was the introduction of a presumption that officers found to have committed gross misconduct should be dismissed, unless exceptional circumstances apply.

This was introduced after a 2023 Home Office review. That review did not identify significant evidence showing misconduct panels were systematically lenient. Nevertheless, a political decision introduced the presumption of dismissal. While the objective of ensuring accountability and consistency is understandable, I believe substantially curtailing panel chairs’ discretion has had undesirable consequences.

Previously, having found gross misconduct, the chair chose an appropriate sanction, referring to a staged approach, and exercising professional judgement.

They had to consider the least severe outcome that adequately dealt with the issues identified in the case, while protecting public interest.

The 2025 amendments to the regulations changed this. Now the outcome of a gross misconduct finding is automatic dismissal, unless the officer persuades the chair exceptional circumstances apply.

There is no guidance at all on what might amount to ‘exceptional’ but, on its ordinary meaning, this is an incredibly high threshold. The issue is not if gross misconduct should normally result in dismissal. It is whether decision-makers should retain the ability to distinguish between cases that are technically similar, but the circumstances provide a very different perspective.

The first problem with this is, given the sanction is effectively mandated, chairs are largely unable to retain an officer even if the circumstances and ‘feel’ of the case might reasonably justify it.

Recently, I have seen good officers with years of exemplary service and experience dismissed. Yes, their conduct amounted to gross misconduct but losing that experience and many years of public investment in them was not always the best option. But the Regulations leave chairs with little option, the officers must be dismissed.

Secondly, the 2020 reforms aimed to bring a culture of learning and improvement rather than one of blame and punishment. This was reflected by introducing the Reflective Practice Review Process. Those reforms recognised that organisational learning is often best achieved when individuals are willing to acknowledge mistakes and engage openly with measures designed to help them learn and improve.

A disciplinary regime in which gross misconduct findings almost invariably result in dismissal risks pulling the service the other way. Officers may become less willing to self-report errors, admit shortcomings or engage openly with misconduct investigations if they perceive the outcome to be predetermined. How is that better for policing?

The PAT backlog

An equally serious concern has emerged with the appeals process. For more than a year, an unresolved indemnity issue which affects PAT chairs has led many qualified individuals to be reluctant to chair the appeal tribunals causing a growing backlog of cases awaiting determination.

Where appeals are unheard for extended periods, officers and police forces face uncertainty. Dismissed officers cannot secure final resolution of their cases, while forces do not know the outcome of contested proceedings.

In our Force, five former officers are waiting to have appeals against dismissal considered, the earliest dating back to March 2025!

The national Federation is pushing the Home Office for a resolution, to no avail. Such delays are difficult to reconcile with the principle of disciplinary proceedings being concluded in a reasonable time.

Justice delayed is not merely inconvenient; it fundamentally undermines confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the system. It also raises broader constitutional questions; access to justice requires more than the existence of a legal right of appeal on paper. A right that cannot be exercised within a reasonable period risks becoming illusory.

If appellants’ appeals cannot be heard because there are insufficient chairs willing or able to constitute tribunals, there is a legitimate argument that effective access to justice is being impaired.

It is a touchstone of the rule of law that legal disputes should be determined by independent decision-makers through effective, functioning legal processes. Confidence in those processes is inevitably weakened where appeal mechanisms are unable to operate because of administrative difficulties.

Conclusion

The police misconduct system depends upon two essential safeguards: independent decision-makers exercising genuine judgment, not following a prescribed tick-box outcome procedure, and a functioning appeals process capable of correcting errors.

The presumption of dismissal risks undermining the former, while the ongoing PAT indemnity dispute threatens the latter. Together, they create a worrying picture in which significant disciplinary outcomes appear increasingly predetermined, while avenues for challenge become effectively inaccessible. This situation cannot be allowed to continue.