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)

*By way of Regulation 2 of the Conduct Regulations. Gross misconduct is defined as ‘[a] breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal’.

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.) This is a separate process, usually, from the formal disciplinary procedure.

Statutory Law:

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

See also the list in the previous section.

Common Law Case Law in Police Disciplinary Cases

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 possession of a single child abuse image.

Case Law

In R (on the application of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester) v Police  Misconduct Panel (Roscoe – Interested Party) [2018] 11 WLUK 822, the appeal judge held that guidance from the College of Policing should be considered. (13th November 2018)

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)

Criminal Law and Police Officers, Trials and Sentences

In Collins v Regina [2022] EWCA Crim 742, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentences of two police officers who had been jailed. The two officers (Lewis and Jaffer) had entered a murder scene without approval and disseminated photographs they had taken. One officer showed a picture to a layperson unrelated to policing. The other showed them to colleagues. The sentences of two years and nine months imprisonment were upheld. The court stated (at 63-68):

63. The culpability that falls to be punished by an offence must be reflected in the sentence that is imposed. In relation to the offence of misconduct in public office, the culpability lies in the abuse of public trust. In order to reflect the degree of culpability underlying an offence of misconduct, the starting point will be that offences involving a high degree of abuse of trust will attract longer sentences. We reject the submission that the abuse of trust inherent in the offence debars a judge from differentiating between higher and lower degrees of abuse on grounds of double-counting. On orthodox sentencing principles, the more serious the conduct which the offence is intended to punish, the more severe the sentence.

64. Nor do we regard it as necessary for a miscarriage of justice to have occurred before misconduct may be regarded as having had an impact on police operations. The fourth principle in Bohannan suggests no such limitation. In the case of a grave crime such as murder, in which there is intense public interest in bringing the perpetrator to justice, the risk of a police officer compromising a full and proper forensic investigation itself represents an acute breach of public trust that will increase an offender's culpability.

65. The impact of the misconduct of Lewis and Jaffer was clear. It enabled Hussein to rely on their offending at the murder trial to support what the jury concluded was his false defence. Although the jury rejected his defence, the misconduct of the police officers afforded him an opportunity to bolster his case which imperilled the administration of justice. In sentencing Lewis and Jaffer, the judge was entitled to treat their misconduct as involving high culpability and to reflect that culpability in the sentences he imposed.

66. The misconduct also caused serious harm. By taking photographs for their own inexplicable purposes, both officers breached universal standards of decency; and they denied the two murdered sisters and their family the dignity and the respect that they deserved. The officers ought to have known the perils of unauthorised entry to the scene of a double murder. Even if they did not know, they had received an instruction to stay in post – which they disobeyed. The purpose of the instruction was to preserve the murder scene. It is in truth no mitigation to say that they did not appreciate what they were doing.

67. Given the corrosive effect of such conduct as we have described above, it is an aggravating factor that they shared images of the bodies with colleagues. In Jaffer's case, it was an aggravating factor that he shared an image with a member of the public who was not subject to the authority or scrutiny of superior officers. An upward adjustment to their sentences was appropriate to reflect this additional harm.

68. The judge appreciated the various mitigating factors in relation to each offender, including their previous good character. He was however entitled to conclude that the serious breach of trust and the need for appropriate deterrence outweighed any mitigation. It is not arguable that the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The other defendant, a civilian employee:

2. Darren Collins pleaded guilty to one count of misconduct and was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. While working for the police as a civilian Digital Forensics Expert, he had transferred thousands of images of scenes of crimes, including numerous images of murder victims and other dead bodies, from police databases to computers and other devices at work and at home. He appeals against sentence with leave of the Single Judge.

The sentence was upheld.

(30 May 2022)