Police disciplinary system overhaul 'could put public safety at risk'

By Lewis Denison, Westminster Producer

Police officers found guilty of gross misconduct will face automatic dismissal under changes to the disciplinary process, some of which the Police Federation said could put public safety at risk.

The Home Office has announced the changes to rebuild trust in the police after it was shattered by a number of rogue officers including Wayne Couzens, who murdered Sarah Everard, and rapist David Carrick.

But Labour shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry told ITV News that the government "should go further" to ensure any officer accused of a serious crime is automatically suspended pending investigation.

The reforms will give extra powers for chief constables to sack rogue staff and they will now preside over misconduct hearings instead of independent lawyers, who currently make the decisions.

But the Police Federation hit out at the change, saying "chief constables presiding once again over misconduct hearings is a huge retrograde step".

Police Federation of England and Wales National Chair Steve Hartshorn said the current system of legally qualified chairs leading hearings "was working" and the change represents a "return to the dark days".

He said it is a "a return to kangaroo courts, whereby an officer is already guilty in the eyes of the chief officer before any evidence is heard, and they already know what outcome they want to see, is deeply concerning".

The brother of Daniel Morgan, a private detective whose unsolved killing in 1987 resulted in an independent panel accusing the Metropolitan Police of “a form of institutional corruption”, was sceptical about the plans.

Alastair Morgan asked: "Is it truly independent when one police officer is judging the conduct of another police officer in his own force?"

He said the changes "just look like they're shuffling the cards a little bit, going back to a system where they talk a lot about independence but the independent lawyers that they talk about are almost always from the stable of lawyers that defend the police.

"So really, I have to say, just shuffling the cards around - something that looks good."

Parm Sandhu, a former Met Police chief superintendent, questioned whether the plan will prevent serious offenders.

"In relation to the Couzens and Carrick case, which have been quoted as the push behind this - they never actually made it to a misconduct board, they were already committing crimes," she said.

Labour's Emily Thornberry says dismissal changes 'don't go far enough'

What are the changes?

Under the plans unveiled on Thursday, a finding of gross misconduct will automatically result in a police officer’s dismissal unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Force bosses will also have the right to challenge decisions they disagree with, the Home Office said.

Independent lawyers, who have sat on the panels since 2016, will continue to advise and maintain “rigour”, but now in a supporting role.

The outcome of the hearings will still be determined by a majority panel decision and continue to take place in public.

Officers who fail vetting checks can also be sacked, following the law changes.

The Home Office carried out a review of the police disciplinary system in the wake of the high profile Couzens and Carrick cases.

It is understood the government wants to bring in the changes as soon as possible, with officials hoping they will be in place by next spring.

What constitute gross misconduct in the police?

Gross misconduct can include things like theft, physical violence, gross negligence or serious insubordination, according to the government.

HNK Solicitors say police misconduct is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 bill.

The standards are:

• Honesty and integrity

• Authority, respect and courtesy

• Equality and diversity

• Use of force

• Orders and instructions

• Duties and responsibilities

• Confidentiality

• Fitness for duty

• Discreditable conduct

• Challenging and reporting improper conduct

Gross misconduct "refers to more extreme cases, where the impact of the officer’s behaviour may have been particularly severe".

Dismissal changes 'could put public safety at risk'

PFEW Deputy National Chair Tiff Lynch said she was "disappointed" with the outcome of the Home Office review into officer dismissals, which she claimed could put public safety at risk.

She said putting chief constables in charge of misconduct hearings could discourage officers from whistleblowing on senior staff.

“Police officers must have confidence that they have the right to fair and transparent disciplinary processes to ensure individual bias does not govern or influence decisions which have serious consequences on an individual’s career and wellbeing," she said.

“If any of these potential changes deter any police officer or police staff member from challenging or reporting the inappropriate or illegal actions of senior leaders or chief constables for fear of failing a future vetting check, public safety and confidence of serving police officers will be further eroded."

“We have requested and await the College of Policing to share the Equality Impact Assessment to ensure no group of officers are unjustifiably disadvantaged by the revised code," she added.

But Gavin Stephens, who is one of Britain’s most senior officers as chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, welcomed the “sensible” plans.

He said they will put police chiefs “back in control” of being able to quickly remove corrupt staff from forces.

Policing minister Chris Philp said confidence in forces has been “rocked” and “public trust must be restored”, adding: “These changes will ensure that police chiefs will have the ability to act fast to remove officers guilty of serious misconduct or who are poorly performing.”

And Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, who has been pushing for force chiefs to have the final say on which officers are sacked, backed the plan.

He was critical upon his appointment last year about the hundreds of rogue officers in his force which he was unable to remove due to rules around the dismissal process.

Sir Mark said: “The flaws in the existing regulations have contributed to our inability to fully address the systemic issues of poor standards and misconduct.

“Chief officers are held to account for the service we deliver and for the standards we uphold which is why I have been persistent in calling for us to have the powers to act decisively and without bureaucratic delays when we identify those who have no place in policing.”

Want a quick, expert briefing on the biggest stories of the day? Listen to What You Need To Know...