The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations amend the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/4) (“the 2020 Regulations”).

Regulations 1 and 2 make general provision.

Regulation 3 makes amendments relating to the composition of misconduct panels.

Regulation 3(1)(b) adds a power into regulation 2 of the 2020 Regulations enabling the chief officer of police to delegate the responsibility for chairing or conducting disciplinary proceedings if they consider it appropriate in a particular case. Such delegation may only be made in accordance with certain requirements.

Regulation 3(2) narrows the power of the appropriate authority to appoint a person conducting or chairing misconduct proceedings or an accelerated misconduct hearing in light of the amendments made by subsequent provisions of this regulation.

Regulation 3(3) changes the composition of the panel that is to conduct a misconduct hearing, constituted under regulation 28 of the 2020 Regulations. The panel is to comprise a chair, who must be the chief of police of the police force concerned, and two lay members. Further, regulation 3(3) makes provision for a legally qualified person to be appointed by the local policing body whose duty is to provide advice to the panel of persons conducting or the person chairing a misconduct hearing. That person must have regard to the advice given by the legally qualified person. Regulation 3(3) also makes provision for the Director General to make recommendations to a chief officer of police acting as the chair of a panel as to whether they should delegate responsibility for chairing the panel to a person from another police force. The chief officer of police must have regard to those representations.

Regulation 3(4) makes amendments related to those made by regulation 3(1) and (3).

Regulation 3(5) makes consequential amendments to regulation 30 of the 2020 Regulations. It requires a chief officer of police who delegates responsibility for chairing a misconduct hearing to notify the officer concerned in writing of the person to whom that responsibility has been delegated. Further, it requires notice to be given to the officer concerned of the legally qualified person appointed under regulation 28(5B) and enables the officer concerned to raise objections against them.

Regulation 3(6) amends the procedure for the misconduct pre-hearing in regulation 33 of the 2020 Regulations. It requires the chair to, as soon as practicable, give written notice of the date, time and place of the misconduct pre-hearing to the legally qualified person appointed under regulation 28(5B). The amendments made by this provision further empower the chair to require the legally qualified person to provide advice and requires the chair to have regard to that advice.

Regulation 3(8) amends regulation 41 of the 2020 Regulations. It requires the legally qualified person to give their advice to all parties to a misconduct hearing and defines what is meant by “parties”.

Regulation 3(9) enables the person chairing a misconduct hearing to require the legally qualified person to provide advice relating to the report they must prepare under regulation 43(1) of the 2020 Regulations. Under these amendments, the chair is able to delegate preparation of that report to the legally qualified person and imposes time limits on the preparation of the report by the legally qualified person, where such responsibility is delegated to them, enables the person chairing the misconduct hearing to amend the report and requires that person to satisfy themselves that they are content with the report prepared by the legally qualified person, whether or not they have amended the report.

Regulation 3(10) amends provision relating to the notice of referral to an accelerated misconduct hearing. It requires the appropriate authority to include in their notice to the officer concerned under regulation 51(1) of the 2020 Regulations the name of the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing and the name of the legally qualified person who has been appointed under regulation 55(4A) of the 2020 Regulations in relation to that hearing. It further applies the provisions of regulation 30, as amended by regulation 3(5), for the purpose of accelerated misconduct hearings.

Regulation 3(11) requires the appropriate authority to specify a new date for an accelerated misconduct hearing where the officer concerned raises an objection under regulation 30 of the 2020 Regulations (as applied to accelerated misconduct hearings) and that objection is upheld. It imposes time constraints on the specification of that date.

Regulation 3(12) makes changes to the persons conducting or chairing an accelerated misconduct hearing under regulation 55 of the 2020 Regulations. It provides that, where the officer is an officer other than a senior officer, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by the chief officer of police of the police force concerned. Where the officer is a senior officer and therefore the hearing must be conducted by a panel, this provision makes changes to the appointment of the chair and applies the related provisions of regulation 28 of the 2020 Regulations, as amended by these Regulations. It further makes equivalent provisions in relation to the appointment of a legally qualified person, the duties on that person and the duties on the chief of police, as are made by regulation 3(3) to regulation 28 of the 2020 Regulations.

Regulation 3(13) amends regulation 61 of the 2020 Regulations. It requires the legally qualified person to give their advice to all parties to an accelerated misconduct hearing and defines what is meant by “parties”.

Regulation 3(14) makes equivalent changes to regulation 63 of the 2020 Regulations in respect of accelerated misconduct hearings as are made by regulation 3(9) in respect of misconduct hearings.

Regulation 3(15) amends Schedule 1 to the 2020 Regulations to apply the changes made by these Regulations to former officers.

Regulation 4 introduces rules in relation to potential conflicts of interest for persons involved in disciplinary proceedings.

Regulation 4(2) inserts regulation 12A into the 2020 Regulations. Regulation 12A introduces new rules on appropriate authorities and chief officers of police regarding the appointment of persons to chair, conduct or advise disciplinary proceedings.

In particular, an appropriate authority may not appoint a person to chair or conduct disciplinary proceedings, chair or conduct a misconduct meeting or appeal meeting, act as an adviser under regulation 8(6) of the 2020 Regulations or act as a legally qualified person under regulation 28 or 55 of the 2020 Regulations if they are aware that circumstances exist that give rise, or may reasonably give rise, to a conflict of interest in relation to that person. Similarly, a chief officer of police may not delegate responsibility for chairing or conducting disciplinary proceedings if they are aware of such circumstances existing in relation to that person.

If the appropriate authority or chief officer of police become aware that such circumstances exist in relation to a person after they have appointed, or delegated responsibility to, that person, the person must be replaced. Similarly, there is a duty on a person not to take up or act in a regulated position if they are aware or become aware of relevant circumstances existing in relation to them.

Regulation 4(1), (3), (4) and (5) make amendments that are consequential on the addition of regulation 12A to the 2020 Regulations by regulation 4(2).

Regulation 5 makes amendments relating to the support of local policing bodies in scrutiny of disciplinary proceedings.

Regulation 5(1) requires the person chairing or conducting misconduct proceedings to give written reasons to the local policing body for exercising their power under regulation 39(3) of the 2020 Regulations to exclude a person from a misconduct hearing, impose conditions that have the effect of excluding a person from that hearing or prohibit the publication of any matter relating to that hearing.

Regulation 5(2) provides that where misconduct proceedings find that the conduct of the officer amounts to gross misconduct but the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice, the reasons for that decision must be included in the report to the appropriate authority or originating authority under regulation 43(1) of the 2020 Regulations. Further, any report under that regulation must be sent to the local policing body where the appropriate authority or originating authority is not the local policing body and the misconduct proceedings find that the conduct of the officer amounts to gross misconduct but the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice.

Regulation 5(3) and (4) make equivalent provision for accelerated misconduct hearings as regulation 5(1) and (2) do respectively for misconduct proceedings.

Regulation 5(5) amends Schedule 1 to the 2020 Regulations to apply the changes made by these Regulations to former officers.

Regulation 6 introduces a new definition for “practice requiring improvement” into the 2020 Regulations and requires persons to have regard to the Code of Ethics published by the College of Policing when making an assessment as to whether their conduct or performance amounts to practice requiring improvement.

Regulation 7 makes saving and transitional provision.

An impact assessment has not been produced as no, or no significant, impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen.