The Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Rules)

These Rules revoke and re-enact (with some modifications) the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2008 (S.I. 2008/2863 – “the 2008 Rules”), as amended by the Police Appeals Tribunals (Amendment: Metropolitan Police) Rules 2011 (S.I. 2011/3029 – “the 2011 Rules”).

The numbering and headings in the 2008 Rules are retained in these Rules. The changes made to the content of the 2008 Rules are as follows.

Where the 2008 Rules referred to police authorities, these Rules refer to local policing bodies. Section 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) abolishes police authorities outside London and replaces them with police and crime commissioners. These commissioners, together with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (which replaced the Metropolitan Police Authority as the body responsible for maintaining the Metropolitan Police, with effect from 16th January 2012) and the Common Council (which retains its functions as the police authority for the City of London police area), are known collectively as local policing bodies (see section 97(2) of the 2011 Act, which amends Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978).

The definition of “specified appeal” in rule 3(1) of these Rules is changed in order to create consistency with the regulations governing police misconduct and performance proceedings. The significance of this is that, in the case of a specified appeal, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is supplied with the notice of appeal, notified of the hearing, allowed to attend as an observer and notified of the tribunal’s decision.

Rule 8 of these Rules provides for the local policing body to designate a person to act as respondent in a case where the appellant is a chief officer of police, or a person carrying out the duties of the chief officer under specified statutory provisions. Under rule 8 of the 2008 Rules, the police authority designated a person to act as respondent in any appeal by a senior officer. The effect of this change is that the chief officer becomes the respondent in relation to an appeal by any police officer other than the chief officer himself or an acting chief officer (the chief officer is already the respondent in appeals by police officers other than senior officers).

Rule 2 of these Rules ensures that action taken by a person designated by a police authority as respondent before the coming into force of these Rules remains valid when the person is replaced as respondent by the chief officer of police by virtue of the new Rule 8. The 2011 Act itself contains provision to ensure the validity of action taken by police authorities on their replacement by the new policing bodies, so there is no need for these Rules to make provision in that regard (see paragraph 21 of Schedule 15 to the 2011 Act).

Rule 22(2) and (3) of these Rules make new provision in relation to the situation where a Tribunal determines that there is fresh evidence, or that there was a procedural default or other unfairness, that could have materially affected the decision appealed against. In this situation, under section 85(2) of the Police Act 1996 the Tribunal may deal with the appellant in any way that he could have been dealt with by the maker of the decision appealed against. But the Tribunal, which will not have heard all of the evidence, will not be well placed to determine how the matter should have been decided had the fresh evidence been available in the original proceedings or the procedural failure or other unfairness had not occurred. Rule 22(2) and (3) allows the Tribunal to remit the matter for re-hearing in these circumstances. Where the original decision was made by a panel, the re-hearing will be before a fresh panel.

Further minor changes are made to the content of the 2008 Rules to reflect the making of new Regulations in respect of police complaints, conduct and performance and to correct some errors.