The Independent Office for Police Conduct (Transitional and Consequential) Regulations 2017

Amendment of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012

23.—(1) The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012(1) are amended as follows.

(2) For—

(a) “Commission” in each place where it occurs substitute “Director General”;

(b) “Commission’s” in each place where it occurs substitute “Director General’s”;

(c) “it” in each place where it occurs and is used as a pronoun in place of “the Commission” substitute “the Director General”;

(d) “its” in each place where it occurs and is used to mean “the Commission’s” substitute “the Director General’s”.

(3) The amendments made by virtue of paragraph (2)(c) do not apply to occurrences of “it” amended by another provision within this regulation.

(4) In regulation 1—

(a) omit the definition of “the Commission”; and

(b) at the appropriate place insert—

““Director General” means the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct;”.

(5) In regulation 11—

(a) in the following paragraphs for “it” substitute “the relevant appeal body or, as the case may be, the Director General”—

(i) (5), in the first place where it occurs; and

(ii) (7); and

(b) in paragraph (11) for “its” substitute “the relevant appeal body’s or, as the case may be, the Director General’s”.

(6) In regulation 13(2) for “it” substitute “the Director General or, as the case may be, the appropriate authority”.

(7) In regulation 18 after “investigator” in the second place where it occurs insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, the Director General”.

(8) In regulation 19—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) for “where an investigator wishes to interview the person concerned as part of his investigation, he shall,” substitute—

“where the person concerned is required for interview as part of—

(a) an investigation under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, the Director General shall;

(b) an investigation under paragraph 16, 17 or 18 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, the investigator shall;”; and

(ii) “if reasonably practicable, agree a date and time for the interview with the person concerned.” becomes full-out words; and

(b) after “investigator” in each place where it occurs except for in paragraph (1) insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act who is not the Director General, the Director General”.

(9) In regulation 20—

(a) the existing text is numbered as paragraph (1);

(b) in (newly numbered) paragraph (1)(c), at the beginning insert “where the investigation was carried out under paragraph 16 or 17 of that Schedule,”; and

(c) after (newly numbered) paragraph (1) insert—

“(2) On completion of an investigation—

(a) carried out under paragraph 18 or 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act; and

(b) to which paragraph 19C(1) of that Schedule applies,

where the Director General notifies the appropriate authority under paragraph 23(6) of that Schedule, the Director General shall indicate in writing to the appropriate authority the Director General’s opinion as to whether there is a case to answer in respect of misconduct or gross misconduct or whether there is no case to answer.”.

(10) In regulation 23(8) for “it” substitute “the Director General or, as the case may be, the appropriate authority”.

(11) In regulation 25(2) for “carrying out an investigation” insert “, under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act has designated a person to carry out, an investigation”.

(12) In the Schedule—

(a) in paragraph 2(11), for “in response to” substitute “in relation to”;

(b) in paragraph 7, in the inserted regulation 19A of the modification—

(i) after “investigator” where it first occurs insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act who is not the Director General, the Director General”; and

(ii) after “investigator” where it otherwise occurs insert “or, as the case may be, the Director General”; and

(c) in paragraph 8—

(i) omit sub-paragraph (a);

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b) omit “and the investigation was carried out under paragraph 16 or 17 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act”;

(iii) in sub-paragraph (c) the inserted paragraph of the modification becomes paragraph (1A);

(iv) after sub-paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) in paragraph (2) for “the Director General’s opinion as to whether” to the end there were substituted “the Director General’s relevant opinion or, as the case may be, opinions.”;

(e) after paragraph (2) there were inserted—

“(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) “the Director General’s relevant opinion or, as the case may be, opinions” are—

(a) the Director General’s opinion as to whether there is a case to answer in respect of gross misconduct or whether there is no case to answer; and

(b) where the Director General’s opinion is that there is no such case to answer, the Director General’s opinion as to whether, nevertheless, there may have been a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.””.

(1)

S.I. 2012/1204.