What are we going to do? 

We are going to improve the timeliness and fairness of police misconduct investigations to strike a better balance between ensuring the police can do their job to keep the public safe and maintaining public confidence that when using lethal force officers act within the law .We are also introducing new measures to uphold policing standards and improve public trust and confidence in the police. 

Measures in the Crime and Policing Bill will: 

Appeals to Police Appeal Tribunals 

Enable chief constables to appeal disciplinary decisions to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT). 

IOPC investigative arrangements 

Change the threshold for Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) so that it aligns with the test the CPS uses for subsequent charging decisions.  

Amend the restrictions on the IOPC to enable them to refer cases to the CPS, or to bring disciplinary hearings, without completing their final report on a complaint or conduct matter.  

Placing the IOPC’s Victims Right to Review policy on a statutory footing.  

How are we going to do it? 

Appeals to Police Appeal Tribunals 

The bill amends the existing powers of the Secretary of State to regulate appeals to the PAT, enabling provision to be made for chief constables to be able to challenge by appeals to the PAT misconduct decisions in relation to an officer in their force. Chief constables will be able to bring an appeal when a misconduct panel makes a decision at a misconduct hearing and the chief constable disagrees with either the finding (that is, whether it is proven that the officer has committed misconduct or gross misconduct) or outcome (that is, the sanction issued, such as a written warning).  

IOPC investigative arrangements 

The bill makes three changes to the legal framework, set out in Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (the PRA), relating to investigations into complaints raised against the police:    

Modify the conditions that must be met by investigations under Schedule 3 to the PRA in order for referrals to be made from the IOPC to the CPS. The bill will align those conditions with the test applied by the CPS when deciding whether to charge, namely whether there are ‘reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed a criminal offence’.   

Relax the restrictions in the PRA which prevent the CPS from bringing criminal proceedings until the IOPC’s investigation is concluded. This change aims to reduce the length of time an officer is under investigation before criminal proceedings can be brought. It would mean that an IOPC investigation report may be submitted to the CPS before the final report has been completed.  

Place the IOPC’s Victims Right to Review policy on a statutory footing. The Victims Right to Review allows complainants and their families to challenge decisions by the IOPC not to refer a matter to the CPS for a charging decision. Under the Victims Right to Review the initial IOPC decision not to refer a case to the CPS is subjected to an independent review by an IOPC officer unconnected to the original investigation. Enshrining the Victims Right to Review in legislation will enhance victims’ rights and send a clear signal that the government supports checks and balances in the police misconduct system.    

Background 

Appeals to the PAT 

A series of high-profile cases, critical reviews and inspections have raised serious concerns about the standards and culture within policing. Data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales also shows a worrying decline in the public’s confidence in the police. 

This led to the Home Office establishing a review into the process of police officer dismissals, to ensure that the system was effective at removing those officers who are unfit to serve. The review’s report, published on 18 September 2023, can be found here: Police officer dismissals: Home Office review GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). The review’s recommendations included extending the statutory right of appeal to the PAT to chief constables – with the government subsequently agreeing to further extend this to local policing bodies (in most cases, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs)), and the IOPC. 

The bill delivers on this, so that the policing workforce and the wider public can be confident that chief constables’ focus is on ensuring the highest standards in policing. To ensure parity and fairness in the system, the bill  also enables an equal route of appeal to the PAT for PCCs, limited to cases involving their chief constable, and the IOPC, limited to case in which they have presented. This ensures consistency, fairness and independence in the system. 

The review also made a series of recommendations on wider reforms to strengthen the police misconduct, vetting and performance systems. The Home Secretary announced, in October 2024, that the government would implement these reforms via secondary legislation. ^{[footnote 1]}

IOPC investigative arrangements 

Following the shooting of Chris Kaba and the subsequent conclusion of the trial of Martyn Blake the Home Secretary announced the outcome of the Accountability Review.  These measures are aimed at improving the timeliness and appropriateness of investigations and the rights of victims. These proposed changes will bring about this aim.   

Key statistics 

Appeals to Police Appeal Tribunals 

Public confidence in policing has declined over recent years. The most recent data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) shows that in the year ending March 2023, overall confidence in local police is 68% (down from 74% when last measured for the year ending March 2020). For the first time since 2015/16, data shows that women were less confident in the police than men (67% vs 68%). Whilst it is difficult to determine definitive reasons for the decline in confidence, high profile cases of police misconduct and criminality (such as Wayne Couzens and David Carrick), as well as reports on police culture and standards (including the Casey Review which referenced the Metropolitan Police Service’s organisational defensiveness) are likely to have played a part. 

The number of officers referred to misconduct hearings in the territorial forces in England and Wales has remained broadly consistent. Between 2015/16 and 2021/22, the average number of officers referred to misconduct hearings per year was 277. In 2015/16 there were 274 officers referred to hearings and, in 2021/22, there were 302. 

As a proportion of those officers referred to a standard misconduct hearing, 64% of officers referred were dismissed, up from 56% in 2015/16. 

Since 2019/20, the proportion of officers found to have committed gross misconduct at a standard misconduct hearing has remained relatively stable at around 80%. In 2021/22, 80% of those officers who were found to have committed gross misconduct were dismissed – 20% of those officers were retained in service and issued alternative sanctions (for example, a final written warning). 

The proportion of standard misconduct hearings which resulted in an appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal has been declining since 2015/16, from 23% to 7% in 2021/22. At accelerated hearings, chaired by Chief Constables, that figure was just 2%. 

IOPC investigative arrangements 

In its 2022/2023 Police complaints publication, the IOPC reported statistics relating to all complaints made about police employees. ^{[footnote 2]} 

In 2022-2023 74,543 people complained about the police.^{[footnote 3]} 

A complaint may include one or more allegations. In 2022-23, 134,952 allegations were made. 80% of allegations were about police officers and 20% of allegations were about police powers, policies and procedures. ^{[footnote 4]}

A majority across all groups are not confident in the fairness of the complaints process. Confidence in the police to deal fairly with complaints has fallen from 56% in January 2020 to 32% in April 2023 while confidence in the IOPC has decreased from 44% in Jan 2020 to 35% in 2023.5 

Frequently asked questions 

Appeals to Police Appeal Tribunals 

Chief constables already have existing routes through which to remove officers. Why do they need a new right of appeal? 

Chief constables are directly responsible for upholding standards in their forces. It cannot therefore be right that they are required to retain officers when they disagree with the decision of a misconduct panel not to dismiss them, without having a statutory route by which to challenge a disciplinary decision. 

Police officers already have a statutory right of appeal to the PAT against disciplinary decisions – the provisions of the bill will foster fairness and parity in the police disciplinary system, by enabling comparable rights to be given to chief constables where appropriate. 

What will be the effect of the changes to the routes of appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal? 

These changes will enable the provision of a statutory route of appeal to the PAT for chief constables, local policing bodies and the IOPC. 

Where a chief constable disagrees with the decision of a misconduct panel – for example not to dismiss an officer – they will be able to appeal against that decision to the PAT, rather than having to resort to judicial review. 

This supports chief constables in upholding the highest possible standards in their forces. 

It will also support local policing bodies in holding their Chiefs to account, as well as ensuring independence in the system by enabling a right of appeal for the IOPC in cases in which it has presented. 

Will this change place an additional burden on Police Appeals Tribunals? 

We do expect there to be many cases where chief constables, local policing bodies or the IOPC will want to challenge the decisions of misconduct panels. 

The government is currently undertaking a process to identify and appoint additional Police Appeals Tribunal Chairs to support any increased demand. 

This measure will however form part of a wider series of reforms to the disciplinary system, which we expect will make it easier to remove those officers who corrupt the integrity of policing. 

Why do Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) or the IOPC need an appeal right as well? 

PCCs have a statutory duty to hold Chief Constables to account, including as the Appropriate Authority in complaints and conduct matters involving Chiefs and have existing powers to require Chiefs to resign or retire. 

Enabling a right of appeal for PCCs will therefore ensure consistency with the right of appeal for Chiefs. 

The IOPC’s right of appeal will be limited to circumstances in which it has presented at a misconduct hearing. This will support independence, transparency and fairness, in its role as the national independent oversight body.  

IOPC investigative arrangements 

Isn’t raising  the threshold for referrals just protecting the police from needed scrutiny? How do these changes uphold public confidence in the police?  

Police officers are accountable through the law for the actions they take in the course of duty, and it is right that the use of their powers is scrutinised.   

Raising the thresholds for IOPC referrals to the test the CPS apply for charging decision should not diminish police accountability, as the CPS will still retain responsibility for the decision on whether to prosecute, based on the full code test.  

It will also now align with the test applied to members of the public, rathe the previous lower standard. 

This change has been thoroughly considered with relevant stakeholders, to ensure a balance is struck between ensuring the police can do their job to keep the public safe, and ensuring operational guidelines are complied with and officers act within the law.   

While it is vital that officers are accountable for their actions, it is also crucial that highly trained officers have the confidence to protect the public by using their skills to respond to emergencies.  

Will changing the referral threshold not make it harder for victims to have their voices heard?   

The CPS will still hold the right to decide whether to prosecute an officer based on the full-code test.  Changes should instead encourage earlier co-operation between the IOPC and CPS and should improve confidence in the supporting evidence of cases which are referred.  

Has consideration been given to how these changes will affect minority ethnic groups / those with poor mental health who are disproportionately affected by the police, and the changes in these amendments?  

Data shows that ethnic diversity in policing does not mirror the communities they serve.   

Disparity of treatment with regards to race or ethnicity is a key factor in public perceptions of police, and a majority across all demographic groups are not confident in the fairness of the complaints process.    

Part of the intention behind placing the Victims Right to Review on a statutory footing is that that will work towards rebalancing this, so that the ability of complainants to seek the decision not to refer to the CPS be reviewed is set out in law. This should encourage greater confidence and representation in the accountability system.  

The Victims Right to Review  already exists – what difference will placing it on a statutory footing make?  

We believe that placing this right in legislation would send a clear message of support to victims and encourage the public to feel the service is more secure.  

In light of changes being made to the referral threshold, which may reduce overall referrals from the IOPC to the CPS, it is key that the public feel their right to review IOPC decision-making is upheld, and we believe that this change will encourage greater transparency in the system.   

This change will also provide a mechanism to hold the IOPC accountable for delivery, which should further encourage trust and confidence in the system amongst all involved.  

Is there a risk that changes to requirements to complete a case file before referring to the CPS will reduce quality and detail?  

This amendment will not impact the quality of investigations. The files provided to the CPS will be from completed investigations to the necessary standard. It will allow files that meet this criteria to be shared earlier for prosecutorial decisions and avoid any undue delays for non-relevant information that might feature in the final report (e.g. reflective learning).  

The timeliness of investigations is a key concern and has a profound impact on all involved. Enabling the swifter conclusion of investigations is in the interests of both officers and the public.   

Why are you making changes to the IOPC’s processes – was this not the intention of the Fairfield review?  

As a key organisation responsible for investigating the most serious matters against the police and other law enforcement bodies, it is reasonable that there was some overlap between both reviews.   

Whilst the Fairfield review (which was published by the last government in March 2024) assessed the effectiveness of the IOPC’s processes and governance. It was carried out under a Cabinet Office programme to review arms lengths bodies. The scope of the Accountability Review and subsequent work on that was broader and is considering improvements to the police accountability and investigatory system as a whole.  

This government and the IOPC has work in hand to implement aspects of the various Fairfield recommendations and will consider remaining aspects, such as governance in due course.

Footnotes

2022/23 (IOPC)](https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/publications/public-perceptions-tracker-summary-report-202223)