Procedure for Decision-Makers in Police Misconduct Cases – College of Policing Guidance for Tribunals

1. Determine Facts (Balance of Probabilities)
2. Assess the seriousness of the misconduct, and in so doing:

a. Consider the Officer’s culpability.
b. Consider the harm caused by the misconduct,
c. Consider the existence of any aggravating factors,
d. Consider the existence of any mitigating factors.

A decision needs to be made, too on the level of misconduct:

Misconduct – which is an officer’s breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour expected of a police officer.

Gross misconduct – which is an officer’s breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious that dismissal from the force could be justified.

3. The decision maker must keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions.
4. Then adopt the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question. (see the Fugler case below)

The Decisions of Police Disciplinary Proceedings

Published Met Police Disciplinary Outcomes

UPP Procedures:

(Unsatisfactory performance or unsatisfactory attendance – an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank he or she is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level.)

Statutory Law:

Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2020 – Procedure where a police officer lodges an appeal.

Case Law

Decision makers must apply the ‘Fuglers Principle’ at the sanction stage of proceedings

Fuglers LLP & Ors v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin) – In summary, at the sanction stage the disciplinary panel must: (1) assess the seriousness of the misconduct; (2) keep in mind the purpose for which sanctions are imposed by the tribunal; and (3) choose the sanction which most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.

Judicial Reviews

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, R (On the Application Of) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2022] EWHC 1951 (Admin) (26 July 2022) – An example case of a judicial review brought by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, against a Police Appeals Tribunal decision not to end a police officer’s career. The High Court held that the tribunal’s decision fell within an appropriate band of response. The police officer had been convicted of a possession of a single child abuse image.

Appeals

British Transport Police v Police Appeals Tribunal [2019] EWHC 73 (Admin) – case remitted back to the Police Appeals Tribunal due to errors of approach.  (24 January 2019)

Hampshire Constabulary v Police Appeals Tribunal & Anor [2012] EWHC 746 (Admin) – Procedural Irregularities Scrutinised – Evidence and Witnesses (27 March 2012)

Baker v Police Appeals Tribunal [2013] EWHC 718 (Admin) – “…the Tribunal has conceded in these proceedings that after issuing the Original Order and Statement of Determination of Appeal it became functus officio and accordingly had no power to make the Amended Order.” The tribunal had directed that the police officer receive full back pay, but it was unaware that the police officer had been working outwith policing during the period of consideration. The High Court opined on the unlawful decision of the tribunal. At para 42:

“42. In a case of the present kind, such an approach would also offend against the principle of legal certainty. It is in the public interest that there comes a point at which any adjudication is treated as final and the only way of challenging the outcome is to pursue any right of appeal or review by another court rather than by reverting to the adjudicator and asking it to change its decision. That important principle would be flouted if the court declined to quash an attempt by the original decision-maker to alter its decision after the point had passed at which the decision became final.”

The court confirmed that the police officer had a private law right to sue for unpaid salary, and that they could properly argue, as part of a civil law contractual claim, that the tribunal’s amendment order was unlawful, it being functus officio (i.e. no longer holding the power to make such a decision) or otherwise “a nullity”. (27 March 2013)

Other Case Law:

In Wimblett v Chief Constable of Lancashire [2026] EWHC 1586 (King’s Bench) it was held that a claimant must demonstrate a wilful act by a police officer (namely dishonesty or a lie) when they notified other forces of the need for an arrest by way of Police National Computer Nominal (PNCN). The Claimant has sued in tort for an unlawful arrest. (25 June 2026)

In R (Przybys) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2026] EWHC 1159 (Admin) it was held that the police could rely on a coroner’s decision and therefore decide not to open a police investigation. (15 May 2026)