A

Where a member is the subject of a criminal investigation no request to provide a duty statement should be made, or if such a request is made, this maybe refused.

Where an allegation of the commission of the misconduct offence has been made, then whether or not a regulation 9 notice has been served a duty statement may be properly refused, it being a statement ‘concerning the matter’. If in doubt seek advice.

A

The written warning will remain on your record for a period of 12 months.

A

No, both the friend and the officer concerned should be given adequate duty time to prepare for a hearing.

1. Case not proven

2. Caution which would not be recorded in the officers personal record.

3. Reprimand which would be recorded in the officers personal record and would be disclosable under the terms or R-v-Edwards.

4. A fine of not more than 13 days pay per charge recoverable over a minimum of 13 weeks. Once again this is disclosable under the terms of R-v-Edwards.

A

All the outcomes that are available in the non legally represented hearing are once again available within a legally represented hearing. However, in addition to these there are a further 3 possible sanctions. These are

A

There are a number of possible outcomes. It of course starts with the matter being fully investigated and a finding of no further action being taken against the officer. It is true to say that this occurs in the majority of formal investigations.

In cases where an officer admits that his or her conduct fell below the required standard by Superintendents written warning. Written warnings from Superintendents may be given only were the officer concerned admits the conduct in question and when a more sanction, following a hearing, is not considered appropriate. However special considerations arise in cases involving the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

In cases were the alleged conduct in considered too serious to be dealt with by written warning or in any case were the officer denies the allegation the matter will proceed to a formal hearing.

There are two types of informal hearing, legally represented hearings and non legally represented hearings.

Hearings will be presided over by an Assistant Chief Constable, with two other officers of at least Superintendent rank acting as assessors. None of the officers taking the hearing should have had any previous involvement in the case, nor should they have so close a connection with the officer concerned as might give rise to suspicions of bias. The presiding officer, in conjunction with the two assessors will be responsible for the conduct of the hearing, the determination of the hearing and the decisions as to the outcome. If there is a difference of view between the officers taking the hearing, the decisions of the hearing will be based on a simple majority vote between them.

A

In serious cases, it might be decided that the officer concerned should be removed from his or her normal duties or be suspended during the course of the formal investigation or pending the outcome of misconduct proceedings. Such a course of action should be taken only where it is necessary and in the public interest to do so. In all cases, unless it was impossible or positively undesirable to do son, consideration should first be given to a temporary transfer to other duties rather than to suspension. Where an officer is suspended this will be with pay, except where the officer is in custody following conviction, or is absent and his or her whereabouts are unknown, when the suspension will normally be without pay. Neither removal from normal duties or suspension implies any decision about the misconduct case.

A

When the investigating officer has completed the investigation, or where it cannot be taken any further, he or she will submit a report to the officer in charge of the Complaints & Discipline Department. An investigation supervised by the I.P.C.C. (Independent Police Complaints Commission) the report should be copied to the I.P.C.C. for their interim statement.

The report should include a short statement of the original complaint or information, a summary of events, the conclusions draw and the recommendations for future action. The report should contain all material relevant to the question of whether the officer has performed his or her duty in accordance with the standards set out in the Code of Conduct, as well as examine any matters relevant to the criminal law, and should include any medical or welfare considerations which may have had a bearing on the officers behaviour at the time. Copies of all statements or other documents obtained by the investigating officer should be attached to this report.

It may at times be proper and appropriate to disclose to an accused officer in misconduct proceedings (or to his or her friend or legal representative) material in an investigation report which could assist in demonstrating the officers innocence or in mitigating any sanction which may be imposed. Such an occasion might arise were misconduct proceedings are started where an investigating officer has recommended none or has recommended that factors mitigating the accused officers capability be taken into account before a decision is made to start misconduct proceedings.

A

Where it has been decided that a misconduct case, whether or not it involves a complaint, should be investigated formally, responsibility for the investigation will normally be issued by the professional standards department.

The investigation should be completed as quickly as is practicable. The investigating officer should ensure that the officer concerned and, if there is one, the complainant are kept informed as to the progress of the investigation, particularly if there is some delay, provided that to do so would not prejudice the investigation.

A

A Regulation 9 Notice or Dis 9 as it is sometimes referred to is a repl allegation or complaint regarding an officer’s conduct. The investigating officer shall as soon as is practicable (without prejudicing his or any other investigation of the matter) cause the member concerned to be given written notice of

A

Informal Resolution is intended to provide a flexible and simple procedure for dealing with complaints of a minor nature which would otherwise attract the full length and formality of the investigation process. Complaints are suitable for informal resolution only if the conduct complained of even if established would not justify a criminal charge or misconduct proceedings, and if the complainant if content for the case to be handled in this way.

The officer appointed to undertake the informal resolution should seek the views of both the complainant and the officer (who should be given access to a friend if he or she wishes) about the matter.

No apology on behalf of the officer concerned may be rendered unless that officer has admitted the complained of and agreed that it fell below the proper standard.

No entry relating the attempted or successful informal resolution of a complaint should be made in the personal record of the officer concerned or be referred to in future misconduct proceedings.

A

In deciding matters of fact the burden of proof lies with the presenting officer and the tribunal must apply the standard of proof in civil cases, that is, the balance of probabilities. The straightforward legal definition of the civil standard of proof is that the adjudicator is convinced by the evidence that it is more likely or probable that something occurred that it did not occur. Importantly, relevant case law makes it clear that the degree of proof required increases with the gravity of what is alleged and its potential consequences. It therefore follows that, were an allegation is likely to ruin an officer reputation, deprive them of their livelihood or seriously damage their career prospects, a tribunal should be satisfied to a high degree of probability that what is alleged has been proved.

A

As this is an inspirational code each police force will set its own standards. However, there are a number or general headings from which charges may be preferred.