Policy paper

Criminal Justice Bill: Police integrity

Updated 23 February 2024

This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government

What are we going to do?

We are introducing new measures to uphold policing standards and improve public trust and confidence in the police.

Openness and transparency of the police is of the utmost importance – that is why, the government is introducing an organisational duty of candour for policing and enabling chief constables to appeal disciplinary decisions to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT).

To that end, measures in the Criminal Justice Bill will:

1. Enable chief constables to appeal to the PAT where they disagree with a misconduct finding or outcome in relation to an officer in their force.

2. Enable a comparable avenue of appeal to the PAT for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), where the officer subject to a disciplinary decision is a chief constable.

3. Introduce an organisational duty of candour, aimed at chief constables, but which will filter down to all officers and staff.

How are we going to do it?

1. 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).

2. Currently, only the officer who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings may appeal the finding or outcome to the PAT. A chief constable’s only current route to challenge such decisions is by way of judicial review. The bill also enables the Secretary of State to make comparable provision enabling appeals by PCCs in limited circumstances where it is the chief constable themselves who is the officer subject to a misconduct decision.

3. The bill will impose a duty on the College of Policing to issue a code of practice relating to ethical policing (including a duty of candour). The legislation will require the College to issue guidance in this crucial area to further promote a culture of high standards, transparency and accountability in policing. This will ensure that the College of Policing must have a code of practice relating to ethical policing. There will be an expectation that chief constables abide by the Code, similar to the Vetting Code of Practice which was updated recently. If challenged in court regarding a force’s failure to adhere to the Code, chief constables will need to justify any deviation.

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^{[footnote 1]} 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). It recommended that, as part of a wider series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct, vetting and performance systems, the government should enable a statutory route of appeal to the PAT for chief constables.

The bill will deliver on this recommendation, designed to improve the confidence, not only of the public, but also the wider police workforce, so that they can be confident that the chief constable’s focus is on ensuring the highest standards in policing. To ensure parity and fairness in the system, the bill is also enabling an equal route of appeal to the PAT for PCCs, limited to cases involving their chief constable. This is to ensure that disciplinary decisions about chief constables themselves can be appealed, in line with the ability chief constables will gain to appeal decisions about other officers.

Duty of candour for policing

On 15 April 1989, a crush at Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s Hillsborough stadium resulted in the tragic deaths of 97 people.

Following the conclusion of fresh Hillsborough inquests in April 2016 which found that those who died at the disaster were unlawfully killed, the then Home Secretary commissioned Bishop James Jones to produce a report on the experiences of those families bereaved by the Hillsborough disaster. Bishop James’ report “‘The Patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ – A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated”, published on 1 November 2017, recommended “for the establishment of a ‘duty of candour’ for police officers.”

A duty of candour for policing has also formed part of recommendations made by other bodies. Notably, the report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, published in June 2021, which considered the police handling of the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1989.

In February 2020 the Home Office introduced a statutory duty of cooperation for individual police officers as part of wider integrity reforms. Police officers now have a responsibility to give appropriate cooperation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, participating openly and professionally in line with the expectations of a police officer when identified as a witness. An organisational duty of candour, aimed at chief officers and requiring them to ensure an ethical culture in the forces they lead, will complement the existing requirements on individual officers.

The legislation will ultimately aim to prevent police forces acting defensively and without honesty and transparency regarding their mistakes and wrongdoing in official proceedings. The government wants to ensure that the experiences of the bereaved Hillsborough families and the family of Daniel Morgan are not repeated, and that police officers act candidly in all official proceedings and do not obstruct the truth.

Key statistics

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 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, currently chaired by an independent Legally Qualified Chair, 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%.

Frequently asked questions

Q. 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.

Q. Why are PCCs being given a right of appeal?

The bill will enable PCCs to gain a right to appeal disciplinary decisions made about chief constables only. Whilst the bill will enable chief constables to gain a right to appeal disciplinary decisions about other officers, it is intended that PCCs will be given a comparable right to appeal decisions about chief constables themselves when they are the subject of disciplinary decisions to ensure parity and fairness in the system.

Q. 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.

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.

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

We do expect there to be cases where chief constables 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.

Q. When will these changes be implemented?

Following Royal Assent of this bill, the government intends to make changes to the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2020, which will establish the specific circumstances in which chief constables (or Police and Crime Commissioners) will be able to use their right of appeal.

Q: Will the government be introducing a duty of candour for policing?

Through changes made in 2020 to the statutory professional standards for policing, which are statutory and were introduced by regulations, we have already introduced the duty of co-operation in relation to official proceedings, which is one of the most important elements of that.

That will be further reinforced by a new Code of Practice for ethical policing, which will be published by the College of Policing in which an organisational duty of candour for policing is included.

To ensure that candour is central to the new Code – and will remain a constant in the future – we have supported the work of the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council by bringing forward legislation requiring the College of Policing to issue it.

Q: What will the impact of this legislation be?

The legislation will create an expectation that chief constables abide by the Code and the duty, similar to the Vetting Code of Practice which is currently being updated. If challenged in court regarding a force’s failure to adhere to the Code, chief constables will need to justify any deviation.

The Code will ensure chief officers have a duty to take steps to ensure that individuals within their organisations act appropriately and with candour in official proceedings. This will also intend to provide the public confidence of the necessary openness and transparency within forces by placing this on a statutory footing and thus ensuring it is not solely profession-led.

We expect chief constables will be monitored by HMICFRS and PCCs in how they adhere to the duties outlined in the Code, including ensuring candour and openness of their forces.

Q: What were the other key recommendations of the review of police officer dismissals and how are they being taken forward?

The government has announced a series of legislative reforms to strengthen the wider police disciplinary system.

This includes:

• responsibility for chairing misconduct hearings to sit with senior officers;
• a presumption of dismissal for cases of proven gross misconduct;
• a statutory requirement to hold and maintain vetting, with a clarified route to remove officers who fail to do so;
• a list of criminal offences, conviction of which automatically amounts to gross misconduct;
• a presumption of accelerated hearings for former officers and special constables; and
• the streamlining of the performance system.

The detail of these reforms is subject to on-going engagement with the policing sector. The government intends to deliver these through amendments to existing regulations during 2024.

1. Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) Annual supplementary tables, year ending March 2023 (Table 4): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesannualsupplementarytables ↩