Legalize / United Kingdom / Statutory-Instrument

The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) Regulations 2020

Type Statutory-Instrument

Publication 2020-10-06

Last updated 2025-12-29

State In force

Department King's Printer of Acts of Parliament

Source legislation.gov.uk

PDF Download

articles Not indexed

Reform history JSON API

(5) Subject to the harm test and paragraph (9), the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must require the relevant authority to publish the report submitted under paragraph (1).

(6) Where the relevant authority is required to publish the report in accordance with paragraph (5), it must do so as soon as practicable after the officer concerned is notified of the outcome of the accelerated misconduct hearing under paragraph (3).

(7) Where the relevant authority publishes a report in accordance with paragraph (5), it must publish the notice on its website for a period of not less than 28 days.

(8) Prior to publication of a report under paragraph (5) the relevant authority may, subject to paragraph (11), redact the document—

(a) in so far as the authority considers redaction is—

(i) necessary for the purpose of preventing the premature or inappropriate disclosure of information that is relevant to, or may be used in, any criminal proceedings,

(ii) necessary in the interests of national security,

(iii) necessary for the purpose of the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(iv) necessary for the purpose of the prevention or detection of misconduct by other MDP officers or their apprehension for such matters,

(v) necessary and proportionate for the protection of the welfare and safety of any informant or witness, or

(vi) otherwise in the public interest, and

(b) in line with any restrictions imposed on the disclosure of information during the course of the proceedings.

(9) The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing may dispense with the requirement under paragraph (5) to publish the report if in the particular circumstances of the case the person considers it is appropriate to do so on any of the grounds set out in paragraph (8)(a) or (b).

(10) In making a decision under paragraph (9), the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing may have regard to any representations—

(a) provided under regulation 53(3) or (5), or

(b) made at the accelerated misconduct hearing.

(11) Information that has already been published during the course of the proceedings may not be redacted under paragraph (8).

Record of accelerated misconduct hearing

64

(1) A verbatim record of the proceedings at the accelerated misconduct hearing must be taken.

(2) The officer concerned must, on request, be supplied with a copy of the record of the proceedings at the accelerated misconduct hearing.

PART 6 — Reflective practice review process

Interpretation and application

65

(1) In this Part—

“participating officer” means the MDP officer whose actions or behaviour are subject to the reflective practice review process, and

“reviewer” means the person who is conducting the reflective practice review process.

(2) The reviewer must be—

(a) the line manager of the participating officer,

(b) another officer who is senior to the participating officer, or

(3) This Part applies where a matter has been referred to be dealt with under the reflective practice review process—

(a) under these Regulations, or

(b) under external procedures.

General

66

(1) Where a matter is dealt with under this Part, regulation 6(2)(b) to (d) does not apply.

(2) Where more than one officer is involved in a matter that has been referred to be dealt with under the reflective practice review process, a joint reflective practice review discussion may take place, provided that individual reflective review development reports are produced.

(3) A participating officer must not be prevented from applying for or obtaining a promotion by reason of the officer’s participation in the reflective practice review process.

(4) Any account given by the participating officer under regulation 67(1)(b) or during the reflective practice review discussion held under regulation 69 is not admissible in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings brought against the participating officer, except to the extent that it consists of an admission relating to a matter that has not been referred to be dealt with under the reflective practice review process.

Referral to reflective practice review process

67

(1) Where a matter is referred to the reflective practice review process, the reviewer must as soon as practicable provide the following to the participating officer—

(a) details of the matter that has been referred and the circumstances that are being considered, and

(b) an invitation to provide an account of the matter that has been referred for review.

(2) The participating officer must provide any account under paragraph (1)(b) within 5 working days beginning with the first working day after the day on which the invitation to do so is received, unless a longer period is agreed with the reviewer.

(3) The reflective practice review process consists of a fact-finding stage and a discussion stage, followed by the production of a reflective review development report.

Fact-finding stage

68

(1) Enquiries made by the reviewer during the fact-finding stage must be reasonable, proportionate and relevant to the purpose, which is to establish the facts of the matter subject to the review process.

(2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) apply to a matter that has been referred under these Regulations to be dealt with under the reflective practice review process.

(3) If at any time during the fact-finding stage substantial evidence becomes available to the reviewer, which was not available to the relevant authority when the matter was referred to be dealt with under the reflective practice review process, the reviewer must refer the matter to the relevant authority for a further assessment under regulation 13.

(4) Where a matter is so referred for a further assessment, unless such further assessment is that the conduct, if proved, would amount to practice requiring improvement, the reflective practice review process must not be continued.

Discussion stage

69

(1) The reviewer must, following completion of the fact-finding stage, invite the participating officer to attend a reflective practice review discussion.

(2) Such discussion should take place as soon as reasonably practicable.

(3) The discussion must include, in particular—

(a) a discussion of the practice requiring improvement and related circumstances that have been identified, and

(b) the identification of key lessons to be learnt by the participating officer, line management or the MDP, to address the matter and prevent a reoccurrence of the matter.

Reflective review development report

70

(1) The reviewer must, following completion of the discussion stage, produce a reflective review development report.

(2) A reflective review development report must contain—

(a) a summary of the issue and any relevant background circumstances,

(b) a summary of the reflective practice review discussion,

(d) any lessons identified for the participating officer,

(e) any lessons identified for the line management or the MDP,

(f) a specified period of time for reviewing the report and the actions taken.

(3) The reviewer must send a copy of the report to the relevant authority.

(4) The relevant authority must take appropriate action to ensure that any lessons identified for the line management or the MDP are addressed.

(5) A copy of the report, together with a note of the review of the report and of actions taken, must be retained.

(6) The report and review notes must be discussed as part of the participating officer’s performance and development review during the 12 month period following production of the report.

Failure to engage with the reflective practice review process

71

If the reviewer considers that the participating officer is failing to engage with the reflective practice review process, the reviewer may refer that failure for assessment by the relevant authority under regulation 13.

SCHEDULE 2 — Modifications to the Conduct Regulations in their application to former officers

Interpretation

1

Any reference in this Schedule to a numbered regulation is to the regulation of the Conduct Regulations set out in the paragraph so numbered in Schedule 1.

Modification to regulation 2 (interpretation and delegation)

2

Regulation 2 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) the following definitions were inserted in the appropriate places—

“Condition C person” means a person in relation to whom regulation 3(2)(a) and (5)(a) and (b) is satisfied;

“Condition C special determination” has the meaning given in regulation 5A(4);

“disciplinary action for gross misconduct” means a finding that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be an MDP officer;

“MDP officer” and “officer” mean, except in regulations 3 (application), 6 (police friend) and 7 (legal and other representation), a person who has ceased to be a member of the MDP;

“relevant time” means the time immediately before the officer concerned ceased to be a member of the MDP;

(ii) the definitions of “appeal meeting”, “disciplinary action”, “extended special leave”, “misconduct meeting”, “practice requiring improvement” and “reflective practice review process” were omitted;

(iii) in the definition of “allegation”, for “, conduct matter or practice requiring improvement” there were substituted “or conduct matter”;

(iv) in the definition of “gross misconduct”, for “as to justify dismissal” there were substituted “that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of the MDP”;

(v) in the definition of “misconduct”, for “so serious as to justify disciplinary action” there were substituted “not so serious that the officer concerned would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of the MDP”;

(vi) in the definition of “misconduct hearing”, after “disciplinary action”, there were inserted “for gross misconduct”;

(vii) for the definition of “misconduct proceedings”, there were substituted—

“misconduct proceedings” means a misconduct hearing,

(viii) in the definition of “proposed witness”, “conducting or” were omitted;

(ix) for the definition of “staff association”, there were substituted—

“staff association” means, where the officer concerned was at the relevant time— a senior officer, the Chief Police Officer’s Staff Association; any other MDP officer, the Defence Police Federation;

(b) for paragraph (4), there were substituted—

(4) Where the chief constable delegates their functions under regulation 49, a decision under that regulation as to whether to certify a case as one where the special conditions are satisfied must be authorised by a senior officer.

Modification: insertion of Part 1A

3

The Conduct Regulations apply as if after regulation 4, there were inserted—

(5A) (1) This Part applies where the officer concerned is a Condition C person. (2) The relevant authority must, as soon as practicable following receipt of a written report made under regulation 20 (report of investigation) or an equivalent report made under external procedures established for England and Wales or Northern Ireland— (a) determine whether the officer concerned has a case to answer in respect of gross misconduct or no case to answer, and (b) send to the Director General a copy of the report and a written record of its determination under sub-paragraph (a). (3) The Director General must make a Condition C special determination after receiving— (a) a copy of the written report or equivalent report (as the case may be) referred to in paragraph (2), and (b) the written record referred to in paragraph (2)(b). (4) A “Condition C special determination” is a determination by the Director General as to whether the taking of disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned in respect of alleged gross misconduct would be reasonable and proportionate having regard to— (a) the seriousness of the alleged gross misconduct, (b) the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the MDP, and (c) the public interest. (5) When assessing the seriousness of the alleged gross misconduct for the purposes of paragraph (4)(a), the matters which the Director General must take into account are— (a) whether it appears that the alleged gross misconduct amounts to a criminal offence, (b) whether it appears that a complainant or other person has been harmed (whether physically or psychologically) by the alleged gross misconduct and, if so, the extent and seriousness of the harm, (c) where it appears that a complainant or other person has been so harmed, whether that person was a vulnerable person, (d) whether it appears that the alleged gross misconduct was intentional, (e) whether it appears that the purpose or one of the purposes of the alleged gross misconduct was personal gain or benefit for the officer concerned, (f) whether it appears that the alleged gross misconduct is aggravated by discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of a person’s race, gender, disability, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation or gender identity, (g) whether it appears that the officer concerned acted with one or more other persons serving with the MDP, (h) the extent to which the alleged gross misconduct involved abuse of a position of trust or authority held by the officer concerned, (i) whether it appears that the officer concerned has taken steps to prevent the alleged gross misconduct being identified or to obstruct investigations into it, other than lawful steps in the officer’s defence, (j) whether it appears that the alleged gross misconduct has had an adverse effect on community relations, (k) whether it appears that there are mitigating circumstances arising out of the health (whether physical or mental) of the officer concerned at the time of the alleged gross misconduct, and (l) any other matters that the Director General considers relevant. (6) When assessing the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the MDP for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the matters which the Director General must take into account are— (a) whether it appears that the alleged gross misconduct has had an effect on relations between the public and the MDP, (b) the extent of any apparent harm to public confidence in the MDP, (c) the effect that a decision not to take disciplinary proceedings might have on public confidence in the MDP, and (d) any other matters that the Director General considers relevant. (7) When assessing the public interest for the purposes of paragraph (4)(c), the matters which the Director General must take into account are— (a) whether it appears that the officer concerned should be prevented from future employment or appointment as a constable, (b) where it appears that the officer concerned should be so prevented, whether disciplinary proceedings are necessary for this purpose, (c) the length of time since the alleged gross misconduct occurred, (d) whether it appears that the officer concerned will be held to account in respect of the alleged gross misconduct through other means, such as criminal or other proceedings, (e) where it appears that a complainant or other person has been harmed (whether physically or psychologically) by the alleged gross misconduct, whether it appears that a decision not to take disciplinary proceedings would adversely affect that person, (f) whether it appears that the officer concerned is unfit to be subject to or to participate in disciplinary proceedings by reason of disability or ill-health, and (g) any other matters that the Director General considers relevant. (8) In paragraph (5)(c), “vulnerable person” means a person who, by reason of age, disability or ill-health, is, or may be, unable to— (a) take care of themselves, or (b) protect themselves against harm or exploitation. (5B) (1) Before making a Condition C special determination the Director General— (a) must give a notification in writing to— (i) any complainant, (ii) any interested person, and (iii) the officer concerned, (b) must consult— (i) the Ombudsman, where the case has been investigated by the Ombudsman, (ii) the Commissioner, where the case has been investigated by the Commissioner, (c) may consult any other person the Director General thinks appropriate. (2) A notification under paragraph (1)(a) must— (a) state that the Director General is to make a Condition C special determination and the consequences of such a determination; (b) explain the effect of regulation 5A; (c) explain that if disciplinary proceedings are taken and the allegation of gross misconduct is proved, the officer concerned may be subject to a finding that the officer would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of the MDP; (d) subject to the harm test, set out any findings relating to the conduct to which the investigation relates in any investigation report sent to the Director General under regulation 5A(2); (e) set out the person’s rights under paragraph (3); (f) in the case of the officer concerned, state that the officer has the right to seek advice from the officer’s staff association or any other body and the effect of regulation 6(1) and (2) (police friend), and 7(1) (legal representation). (3) A person given a notification under paragraph (1)(a) may, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given or such longer period as the Director General may agree with that person, provide a written statement and any document which the person wishes the Director General to take into account for the purposes of the Condition C special determination. (4) When making a Condition C special determination the Director General must take into account in addition to the matters specified in regulation 5A— (a) any response to a consultation carried out under paragraph (1)(c), (b) any written statement or document provided under paragraph (3), (c) any findings relating to the conduct to which the investigation relates in any investigation report sent to the Director General under regulation 5A(2), and (d) any other relevant evidence. (5) The Director General must give notification in writing of a Condition C special determination and the consequences the determination to— (a) the persons mentioned in paragraph (1), (b) the Ombudsman, where the Ombudsman has been consulted under paragraph (1)(b)(i), (c) the Commissioner, where the Commissioner has been consulted under paragraph (1)(b)(ii), and (d) the investigator appointed under external procedures established for England and Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.

Modification to regulation 6 (police friend)

4

Regulation 6 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1), for sub-paragraph (d), there were substituted—

(d) any other person approved by the chief constable.

(b) in paragraph (2)—

(i) “Subject to regulation 66(1),” were omitted,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), “or appeal meeting” were omitted,

(iii) in sub-paragraph (d), “, meeting” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 7 (legal and other representation)

5

Regulation 7 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (3), for the words “the officer may be dismissed” to the end, there were substituted “disciplinary action for gross misconduct may be imposed in relation to the officer without the officer being so represented”;

(b) in paragraph (4), for the words “misconduct proceedings” to the end, there were substituted “misconduct proceedings or an accelerated misconduct hearing by a police friend;

(i) in the opening words, “or an appeal meeting” were omitted,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), the words from the beginning to “only,” were omitted;

(d) paragraph (6) were omitted;

(e) paragraph (7) were omitted;

(f) in paragraph (8)—

(i) in the opening words, “or the Ombudsman, as the case may be,” were omitted;

(ii) at the end of sub-paragraph (a), “and” were omitted;

(iii) sub-paragraph (b) were omitted;

(g) in paragraph (9), “or the Ombudsman, as the case may be,” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 8 (provision of notices or documents)

6

Regulation 8 is to be read as if after paragraph (1), there were inserted—

(1A) The relevant authority must make reasonable enquiries in order to determine the last known address of the officer concerned for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b).

Modification: omission of regulation 10 (suspension)

7

The Conduct Regulations are to be read as if regulation 10 were omitted.

Modification to regulation 11 (record of disciplinary proceedings)

8

Regulation 11 is to be read as if for “and decision on disciplinary action”, there were substituted “, any decision on disciplinary action for gross misconduct”.

Modification to regulation 13 (severity assessment)

9

Regulation 13 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) at the beginning, there were inserted “Subject to paragraph (6A),”;

(ii) “misconduct or” and “or neither” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (2), for the words beginning with “amount”, in the first place that word occurs, to the end, there were substituted “not amount to gross misconduct, it must take no further action.”;

(d) in paragraph (5)—

(i) at the beginning, there were inserted “Subject to paragraph (6A),”;

(ii) for the words beginning with “misconduct or” to the end, there were substituted “gross misconduct, the matter must be investigated.”;

(e) in paragraph (6), at the beginning, there were inserted “Subject to paragraph (6A),”;

(f) after paragraph (6), there were inserted—

(6A) The relevant authority must take no action or no further action under paragraph (1), (5) or (6) if— (a) it is satisfied that the officer concerned is unfit for disciplinary proceedings to be brought against the officer by reason of disability or ill-health, or (b) the relevant authority has made reasonable enquiries in order to determine the last known address of the officer but it has been unsuccessful.

(g) in paragraph (7), for the words beginning with “or to refer” to the end, there were substituted “or is required under paragraph (6A)(a) to take no action or no further action, it must so notify the officer concerned in writing as soon as practicable.”.

Modification to regulation 14 (appointment of investigator)

10

Regulation 14 is to be read as if in paragraph (3), for sub-paragraph (b), there were substituted—

(b) if they worked, directly or indirectly, under the management of the officer concerned at the relevant time,

Modification to regulation 15 (investigation)

11

Regulation 15 is to be read as if, in paragraph (1), “misconduct or”, in both places where those words appear, were omitted.

Modification to regulation 16 (written notices)

12

Regulation 16 is to be read as if in paragraph (1)—

(a) for sub-paragraph (d), there were substituted—

(d) that if the allegation of gross misconduct is proved, the officer may be subject to a finding that the officer would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of the MDP,

(b) in sub-paragraph (h), after “17(1)”, there were inserted “, 19A(2)”.

Modification to regulation 19 (interviews during investigation)

13

Regulation 19 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1), after “practicable” there were inserted “and subject to regulation 19A”;

(b) in paragraph (5), for the words beginning with “must” to the end there were substituted “must be reasonable.”.

Modification: insertion of regulation 19A

14

The Conduct Regulations are to be read as if after regulation 19 there were inserted—

(19A) (1) Where the investigator is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the officer concerned, it would be unreasonable to require the officer to attend an interview, the investigator may cause the officer concerned to be given a written notice of enquiry. (2) A notice of enquiry given under paragraph (1) must— (a) state any question the investigator wishes to ask the officer concerned, and (b) request a response to any such question from the officer concerned within a specified period. (3) The investigator must make a written record of any notice of enquiry and response received under this regulation.

Modification to regulation 20 (report of investigation)

15

Regulation 20 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (2)—

(i) after sub-paragraph (b), “and” were inserted;

(ii) for sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) there were substituted—

(c) indicate the investigator’s opinion as to whether— (i) there is a case to answer in respect of gross misconduct or there is no case to answer; (ii) where the investigator’s opinion is that there is no such case to answer, there may nevertheless have been a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would have justified the bringing of disciplinary proceedings had the officer still been serving.

(b) in paragraph (4)—

(i) for “amount to neither misconduct nor”, there were substituted “not amount to”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), for “it,” there were substituted “it, and”;

(iii) sub-paragraph (c), and the “and” before it were omitted;

Modification to regulation 21 (general)

16

Regulation 21 is to be read as if—

(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modification to regulation 22 (national security: power to give directions in relation to misconduct hearings)

17

Regulation 22(3) and (4) is to be read as if “conducting or” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 23 (referral of case to misconduct proceedings)

18

Regulation 23 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), in the first place it occurs, “misconduct or” were omitted;

(ii) for sub-paragraph (c), there were substituted—

(c) if there is no case to answer, whether there may have been a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would have justified the bringing of disciplinary proceedings had the officer still been serving.

(b) after paragraph there were inserted—

(1A) In relation to a Condition C person, the relevant authority must not refer the case to misconduct proceedings unless the Director General has made a Condition C special determination under regulation 5A(3) that the taking of disciplinary proceedings against the person in respect of alleged gross misconduct was reasonable and proportionate.

(d) in paragraph (3) “and paragraph (9)” were omitted;

(e) in paragraph (4), for the words from “assess” to the end, there were substituted “take no disciplinary action for gross misconduct against the officer concerned.”;

(f) paragraphs (5), (7) and (9) were omitted;

(g) in paragraph (6)—

(i) for “completed the assessment under paragraph (3)”, there were substituted “determined there is no case to answer or that no misconduct proceedings will be brought”;

(ii) in subparagraph (a), for “the outcome of its assessment”, there were substituted “its determination”;

(h) in paragraph (8)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), the words from “of the form specified” to the end were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), “of the form specified in the recommendation” were omitted;

(iii) sub-paragraph (d) were omitted;

(iv) in the words after sub-paragraph (d), “of the form specified” were omitted.

Modifications to regulation 24 (presenting of case by the Director General or the Ombudsman)

19

Regulation 24 is to be read as if—

(a) in the heading, “or the Ombudsman” were omitted;

(b) paragraph (6) were omitted;

Modification to regulation 25 (joint misconduct proceedings)

20

Regulation 25 is to be read as if—

(a) paragraph (2) were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (5), “conducting or” were omitted;

(d) paragraph (9) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 26 (withdrawal of misconduct proceedings)

21

Regulation 26 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)(a), “misconduct or” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words from “may” to the end, there were substituted “must take no further action against the officer concerned,”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b)(i), “, indicating whether any action will be taken under paragraph (2)(a)” were omitted;

(d) for paragraphs (4) to (6), there were substituted—

(4) A case investigated under external procedures established for England and Wales may only be withdrawn— (a) on the direction of the Director General, following consultation with the relevant authority, where the Director General has made a recommendation under paragraph 25(4C)(c) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (duties with respect to disciplinary proceedings), which the relevant authority accepted; or (b) on the decision of the relevant authority, in all other cases.

Modification to regulation 27 (persons conducting misconduct proceedings)

22

Regulation 27 is to be read as if—

(a) paragraphs (1) to (3) were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (4) for “The panel must comprise” there were substituted “Subject to paragraphs (5) and (5A), where the case is referred to a misconduct hearing, that hearing must be conducted by a panel of three persons, comprising”;

(c) “in paragraph (5), for “where the officer concerned is a senior officer the panel must comprise” there were substituted “where the case is referred to a misconduct hearing and the officer concerned was a senior officer at the relevant time, that hearing must be conducted by a panel of three persons comprising”;

(d) in paragraph (5A) for “is the chief constable” there were substituted “was the chief constable at the relevant time;”;

(e) in paragraph (5E)—

(i) for “is not a senior officer” there were substituted “was not a senior officer at the relevant time”;

(ii) paragraph (b) were omitted;

(f) in paragraph (5F)—

(i) “or Ombudsman, as the case may be,” were omitted;

(ii) paragraph (b) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 28 (role of chair of misconduct hearing)

23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modification to regulation 29 (notice of referral to misconduct proceedings)

24

Regulation 29 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a)—

(aa) in paragraph (ii), “misconduct or” and “, as the case may be” were omitted;

(bb) in paragraph (iii), for the words from “conduct” to “a chair,” there were substituted “chair the misconduct proceedings and”;

(cc) in paragraph (v), “in relation to the form of misconduct proceedings to which the case is being referred” were omitted;

(dd) in paragraph (vi), sub-paragraph (bb), and the “or” preceding it, were omitted;

(ee) after paragraph (vi), “and” were omitted;

(ff) after paragraph (vii), there were inserted—

(viii) the fact that the officer will be subject to disciplinary proceedings under the Conduct Regulations, and (ix) the fact that, if the allegation of gross misconduct is proved, the officer may be subject to a finding that the officer would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of the MDP,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (c), after paragraph (i), “and” were omitted and there were inserted—

(ia) in the case of a Condition C person, any written statement or document provided to the Director General under regulation 5B(3) and any response to a consultation carried out under regulation 5B(1)(c), and

(b) paragraph (2) were omitted;

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for “conduct or, as the case may be, chair”, there were substituted “chair”;

(ii) sub-paragraph (b) were omitted;

(d) in paragraph (5)—

(i) “conduct or, as the case may be,” were omitted;

(ii) “or to any person appointed under regulation 7(6) to advise the person conducting or chairing the misconduct meeting” were omitted;

(e) in paragraph (6), “, regulation 7(6)” were omitted;

(f) in paragraph (7)—

(i) “conduct or, as the case may be,” were omitted;

(ii) “conducting or” were omitted;

(g) in paragraph (10)—

(i) in the opening words, the words from “or the Ombudsman” to “present a case,” were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), “, or the Ombudsman,” were omitted;

(iii) in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), “or the Ombudsman” were omitted both times it occurs.

Modification to regulation 30 (procedure on receipt of notice)

25

Regulation 30 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)(b), “conducting or” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (2)(a), (b) and (c), “misconduct or” and “, as the case may be” were omitted;

(d) in paragraph (5)—

(i) in the opening words, the words from “, or the Ombudsman” to “present a case” were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), “or the Ombudsman, as appropriate,” were omitted;

(iii) in sub-paragraph (b), “or the Ombudsman,” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 31 (witnesses and documents to be supplied)

26

Regulation 31 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraphs (1), (3), (5), in both places where the words appear, (6), (9), (11) and (13)(b), “conducting or” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (6)(c), for “misconduct or gross misconduct, as the case may be” there were substituted “gross misconduct”;

(i) in the opening words, the words from “, or the Ombudsman” to the end were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (d), “or the Ombudsman” were omitted each time it occurs;

(iii) in sub-paragraph (c), “or, as the case may be “of the Ombudsman”” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 32 (misconduct pre-hearing)

27

Regulation 32 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)(b)(iii), “or the Ombudsman” were omitted both times it occurs;

(b) in paragraph (6)(e)—

(i) “or, as the case may be, the Ombudsman’s” were omitted;

(ii) “or the Ombudsman” were omitted;

Modification: omission of regulation 33 (timing of misconduct meeting)

28

The Conduct Regulations are to be read as if regulation 33 were omitted.

Modification to regulation 34 (notice of misconduct proceedings and panel)

29

Regulation 34 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (2)—

(i) the words from the beginning to “a panel,” were omitted;

(ii) for “that panel” there were substituted “the panel”;

(b) in paragraph (10)—

(i) “or the Ombudsman” were omitted;

(ii) “or, as the case may be, the Ombudsman,” were omitted;

Modification to regulation 35 (public notification of misconduct hearings)

30

Regulation 35 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) after sub-paragraph (d), “and” were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (e), for “misconduct or gross misconduct, as the case may be”, there were substituted “gross misconduct”;

(iii) after sub-paragraph (e), there were inserted—

, and (f) where the officer concerned is a Condition C person, the Condition C special determination.

(b) in paragraph (3)(d)(ii), for “(e)” there were substituted “(f)”;

Modification to regulation 36 (attendance of officer concerned at misconduct proceedings)

31

Regulation 36 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (2), in both places where the words appear, “conducting or” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (3)(a)(ii), “in the case of a misconduct hearing,” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 37 (participation of the Director General, Ombudsman and investigator at misconduct proceedings)

32

Regulation 37 is to be read as if—

(a) in the heading, “, Ombudsman” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in the opening words, “or, as the case may be, Ombudsman,” were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), the words from “or sections 54(2)” to “1998 Act” were omitted;

(iii) in sub-paragraph (b)—

(aa) in the opening words, “or section 57 of the 1998 Act” were omitted;

(bb) paragraph (ii), and the immediately preceding “or”, were omitted;

(i) “or Ombudsman” were omitted, each time it occurs;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), “if it is a misconduct hearing” were omitted;

(d) in paragraphs (2)(c), (3) and (4), “conducting or” were omitted;

(e) in paragraph (4), sub-paragraph (c), and the immediately preceding “or”, were omitted;

(f) in paragraph (5), “or the Ombudsman, as the case may be,” were omitted;

(g) in paragraph (6) sub-paragraph (b), and the immediately preceding “or” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 38 (reporting restrictions, participation and exclusions from proceedings)

33

Regulation 38 is to be read as if—

(a) paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (6)—

(i) “conducting or” were omitted both times it appears;

(ii) omit from “in the case” to “misconduct hearing”;

Modification to regulation 39 (attendance of complainant, interested persons and others at misconduct proceedings)

34

Regulation 39 is to be read as if—

(a) paragraphs (3), (4) and (6) were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (5), “conducting or” were omitted.

Modification to regulation 40 (procedure at misconduct proceedings)

35

Regulation 40 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraphs (1), (3), (5), (10) and (11) “conducting or” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (2), “in relation to the form of misconduct proceedings taking place” were omitted;

(c) in paragraph (5), for “misconduct or gross misconduct, as the case may be”, there were substituted “gross misconduct”;

(d) in paragraph (8), “(at a misconduct hearing)” were omitted;

(e) after paragraph (10), there were inserted—

(10A) Where evidence is given or considered at the misconduct hearing that the officer concerned was given written notice of an interview under regulation 19(6) (interviews during investigation) or external procedures and failed to attend the interview, paragraph (14) applies.

(f) in paragraph (12)(b) after “17(1)” there were inserted “, 19A(2)”;

(g) in paragraphs (14) and (16), “person or” were omitted;

(h) for paragraph (15) there were substituted—

(15) The panel conducting the misconduct proceedings must review the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.

(i) in paragraph (17), “At misconduct proceedings conducted by a panel,” were omitted;

(j) paragraph (19) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 41 (outcome of misconduct proceedings)

36

The Conduct Regulations are to be read as if for regulation 41 there were substituted—

(41) (1) The panel conducting a misconduct hearing may, subject to the provisions of this regulation— (a) where they find the conduct amounts to gross misconduct, impose disciplinary action for gross misconduct, or (b) where they find that the conduct amounts to misconduct but not gross misconduct, record a finding of misconduct but take no further action. (2) Where the question of disciplinary action for gross misconduct is being considered, the persons considering it— (a) must have regard to the record of service of the officer concerned as shown on the officer’s personal record, (b) may receive evidence from any witness whose evidence would, in their opinion, assist them in determining the question, including evidence of mitigating circumstances disclosed prior to the hearing to— (i) the MDP, (ii) a registered medical practitioner, or (iii) a staff association, (c) must give— (i) the officer concerned, (ii) if the officer concerned is legally represented, the officer’s relevant lawyer or, if the officer is not legally represented, the officer’s police friend, (iii) the relevant authority or the person appointed to represent such authority in accordance with regulation 7(5), and (iv) the Director General or the Director General’s relevant lawyer, where the Director General made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present the case, an opportunity to make oral or written representations before any such question is determined, and (d) where representations are received into mitigating circumstances— (i) must consider whether those circumstances have been mentioned at an earlier stage in the proceedings and, if they have not been so mentioned, whether the officer concerned could reasonably have been expected to so mention them, and (ii) in the light of their conclusions under paragraph (i), may determine that it is appropriate to place less weight on those circumstances.

Modification to regulation 42 (notification of outcome)

37

Regulation 42 is to be read as if——

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) “conducting or” and “or misconduct meeting” were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (a), “person or” were omitted;

(iii) for sub-paragraphs (c) and (d), there were substituted—

(c) whether disciplinary action for gross misconduct was imposed.

(iv) in para (e) for “but the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice” there were substituted “but disciplinary action for gross misconduct was not imposed”;

(b) in paragraph (2)(b)—

(i) “misconduct or” were omitted, and

(ii) for “in accordance with paragraph (3)”, there were substituted “under the Appeals Tribunal Regulations”;

(d) in paragraph (4), “In all cases referred to in paragraph (3)” were omitted;

(e) in paragraph (5)—

(i) sub-paragraph (b) were omitted,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (d) for “the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice” there were substituted “disciplinary action for gross misconduct was not imposed”.

Modification to regulation 43 (record of misconduct proceedings)

38

Regulation 43 is to be read as if, for paragraph (1), there were substituted—

(1) A verbatim record of the misconduct proceedings must be taken.

Modification: omission of regulations 44 to 46 (appeals)

39

The Conduct Regulations are to be read as if regulations 44 to 46 were omitted.

Modification to regulation 47 (general)

40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modification to regulation 49 (referral of case to accelerated misconduct hearing)

41

Regulation 49 is to be read as if in paragraph (2)(b), for the words from “for the officer concerned” to the end of the paragraph, there were substituted “that the officer concerned should be prevented from future employment or appointment as a constable”.

Modification to regulation 50 (remission of case)

42

Regulation 50 is to be read as if paragraph (4)(b) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 51 (notice of referral to accelerated misconduct hearing)

43

Regulation 51 is to be read as if—

(za) in paragraph (1)(c)—

(i) the “and” after sub-paragraph (i) were omitted;

(ii) after sub-paragraph (i) there were inserted—

(ia) in the case of a Condition C person, any written statement or document provided to the Director General under regulation 4B(3) and any response to a consultation carried out under regulation 4B(4), and

(a) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (b), paragraph (ii) and the “or” immediately preceding it were omitted;

(ii) the “and” after paragraph (d) were omitted;

(iii) after paragraph (d) there were inserted—

(da) set out the fact that the officer will be subject to disciplinary proceedings under these Regulations, and (db) set out the fact that, if the allegation of gross misconduct is proved, the officer may be subject to a finding that the officer would have been dismissed if the officer had not ceased to be a member of the MDP,

(b) in paragraph (3), “or the Ombudsman, as appropriate” were omitted, each time it occurs.

Modification to regulation 52 (notice of accelerated misconduct hearing)

44

Regulation 52 is to be read as if paragraph (3) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 53 (public notification of accelerated misconduct hearing)

45

Regulation 53 is to be read as if paragraph (4)(f), and the immediately preceding “and”, were omitted.

Modification to regulation 54 (procedure on receipt of notice)

46

Regulation 54 is to be read as if paragraph (3) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 55 (persons conducting accelerated misconduct hearing)

47

Regulation 55 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1), for “is not a senior officer” there were substituted “was not a senior officer at the relevant time”;

(b) in paragraph (3), for “is a senior officer” there were substituted “was a senior officer at the relevant time”;

(d) in paragraph (8)—

(i) for “is not a senior officer” there were substituted “was not a senior officer at the relevant time”;

(ii) paragraph (b) were omitted;

(e) in paragraph (9)—

(i) “or Ombudsman, as the case may be,” were omitted;

(ii) paragraph (b) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 56 (documents to be supplied)

48

Regulation 56 is to be read as if paragraph (5) were omitted.

Modification to regulation 58 (participation of Director General, Ombudsman and investigator at accelerated misconduct hearing)

49

Regulation 58 is to be read as if—

(a) in the heading, “, Ombudsman” were omitted;

(b) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), the words from “or section 54(2)” to the end were omitted;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (c)—

(aa) in the opening words, “or section 57 of the 1998 Act” were omitted;

(bb) paragraph (ii), and the immediately preceding “or”, were omitted;

(d) in paragraph (4), sub-paragraph (c), and the immediately preceding “or”, were omitted;

(e) in paragraph (5), sub-paragraph (b), and the immediately preceding “or”, were omitted.

Modification to regulation 61 (procedure at accelerated misconduct hearing)

50

Regulation 61 is to be read as if—

(a) after paragraph (10), there were inserted—

(10A) Where evidence is given or considered at the misconduct hearing that the officer concerned was given written notice of an interview under regulation 19(6) (interviews during investigation) or under external procedures and failed to attend the interview, paragraph (13) applies.

(b) in paragraph (12)(b) after “regulation 17(1) there were inserted “, 19A(2)”;

Modification to regulation 62 (outcome of accelerated misconduct hearing)

51

The Conduct Regulations are to be read as if for regulation 62, there were substituted—

(62) (1) Subject to the provisions of this regulation, the person or panel conducting the accelerated misconduct hearing may— (a) where the person or panel finds the conduct amounts to gross misconduct, impose disciplinary action for gross misconduct, or (b) where the person or panel finds the conduct amounts to misconduct but not gross misconduct, record a finding of misconduct but take no further action. (2) Where the question of disciplinary action for gross misconduct is being considered, the person or panel considering it— (a) must have regard to the record of service of the officer concerned as shown on the officer’s personal record, (b) may consider such documentary evidence as would, in their opinion, assist them in determining the question, (c) must give— (i) the officer concerned, (ii) if the officer concerned is legally represented, the officer’s relevant lawyer or, if the officer is not legally represented, the officer’s police friend, (iii) the relevant authority or the person appointed to represent such authority in accordance with regulation 7(5), and (iv) the Director General or the Director General’s relevant lawyer, where the Director General made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present the case, an opportunity to make oral or written representations, and (d) where representations are received in relation to mitigating circumstances— (i) must consider whether those circumstances have been mentioned at an earlier stage in the proceedings and, if they have not been so mentioned, whether the officer concerned could reasonably have been expected to so mention them, and (ii) in the light of their conclusions under paragraph (i), may determine that it is appropriate to place less weight on those circumstances.

Modification to regulation 63 (notification of outcome)

52

Regulation 63 is to be read as if—

(a) in paragraph (1)—

(i) for sub-paragraph (c) there were substituted—

(c) whether disciplinary action for gross misconduct was imposed,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (d) for “the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice” there were substituted “no disciplinary action for gross misconduct was imposed”;

(b) in paragraph (4)(a) “or the Ombudsman” were omitted both times it occurs;

(c) in paragraph (4)(c) for “the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice” there were substituted “no disciplinary action for gross misconduct was imposed”.

Modification: omission of Part 6 (reflective practice review process)

53

The Conduct Regulations are to be read as if Part 6 were omitted.

SCHEDULE 3 — Standards of Professional Behaviour

Honesty and Integrity

1

MDP officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

2

(1) MDP officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.

(2) MDP officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.

Equality and Diversity

3

MDP officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly.

Use of Force

4

MDP officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Orders and Instructions

5

(1) MDP officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions.

(2) MDP officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.

Duties and Responsibilities

6

(1) MDP officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities.

(2) MDP officers have a responsibility to give appropriate cooperation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, participating openly and professionally in line with the expectations of a MDP officer when identified as a witness.

Confidentiality

7

MDP officers treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of police duties.

Fitness for Duty

8

MDP officers when on duty or presenting themselves for duty are fit to carry out their responsibilities.

Discreditable Conduct

9

(1) MDP officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty.

(2) MDP officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.

Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct

10

MDP officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

SCHEDULE 4 — The Performance Regulations

PART 1 — Introduction

Regulations

1

Any reference in this Schedule—

(a) to a numbered regulation is, unless otherwise stated, to the regulation set out in the paragraph so numbered in this Schedule;

(b) to “these Regulations” is to the Regulations set out in this Schedule.

Application

2

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), these Regulations apply where unsatisfactory performance or attendance by an MDP officer comes to the attention of the line manager of the MDP officer, or the chief constable, on or after 2nd November 2020.

(2) These Regulations do not apply in relation to—

(a) a senior officer;

(b) an MDP officer of the rank of constable who has not completed the period of probation applicable to the officer.

Interpretation and delegation

3

(1) In these Regulations—

“first stage appeal meeting” has the meaning given to it by regulation 18(8);

“first stage meeting” has the meaning given to it by regulation 14;

“gross incompetence” means a serious inability or serious failure of an MDP officer to perform the duties of the officer’s rank or the role the officer is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level, without taking into account the officer’s attendance, to the extent that dismissal would be justified and “grossly incompetent” is to be construed accordingly;

“human resources professional” means an MDP officer or staff member who has specific responsibility for personnel matters relating to members of the MDP;

“investigator”, other than in regulation 13, means a person appointed or designated under external procedures established for England and Wales;

“nominated person” means a person appointed by the senior manager in accordance with regulation 8;

“officer concerned” means the MDP officer in respect of whom proceedings under these Regulations are, or are proposed to be, taken;

“panel” means a panel appointed by the relevant authority in accordance with regulation 33 subject to any change to the membership of that panel in accordance with regulation 34 and regulations 47;

“police friend” means a person chosen by the officer concerned in accordance with regulation 4;

“proposed witness” means a witness whose attendance at a third stage meeting the officer concerned or the relevant authority (as the case may be) wishes to request of the panel chair;

“relevant authority” means the chief constable;

“relevant terms of the final written improvement notice” has the meaning given to it by regulation 26;

“relevant terms of the written improvement notice” has the meaning given to it by regulation 18;

“second line manager” means the person appointed by the relevant authority to act as the second line manager for the purposes of these Regulations in relation to the officer concerned and who is either— a member of the MDP having supervisory responsibility for the line manager and who (in a case where the line manager is a member of the force) is senior in rank to the line manager, or a staff member who has supervisory responsibility for the line manager;

“second stage appeal meeting” has the meaning given to it by regulation 26(8);

“second stage meeting” has the meaning given to it by regulation 21(2) or 23(5)(e), as the context requires;

“senior manager” means— the MDP officer or staff member who is the supervisor of the person who is, in relation to the officer concerned, the second line manager, or in the absence of such supervisor, the MDP officer or staff member nominated by the relevant authority to carry out any of the functions of such supervisor under these Regulations, being of at least the same or equivalent rank or grade as the person who is, in relation to the officer concerned, the second line manager;

“staff association” means the Defence Police Federation;

“third stage meeting” has the meaning given to it by regulation 29(2) or 31(3), as the context requires;

(2) In these Regulations—

(a) a reference to—

(i) unsatisfactory performance or attendance, or

(ii) the performance or attendance of an MDP officer being unsatisfactory,

is a reference to an inability or failure of an MDP officer to perform the duties of the role or rank the officer is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level;

(b) “unsatisfactory performance or attendance” may be construed as a reference to unsatisfactory performance and attendance;

(3) In these Regulations, references to paragraphs of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act are to those paragraphs as applied under an agreement under section 26(1) of the 2002 Act.

(4) Information in documents which are stated to be subject to the harm test under these Regulations must not be given to the officer concerned in so far as the relevant authority considers that preventing disclosure to the officer is—

(a) necessary for the purpose of preventing the premature or inappropriate disclosure of information that is relevant to, or may be used in, criminal proceedings,

(b) necessary in the interests of national security,

(d) necessary for the purpose of the prevention or detection of misconduct by—

(i) MDP officers;

(ii) persons under the direction and control of a chief officer of a relevant force;

or their apprehension for such matters,

(e) justified on the grounds that providing the information would involve disproportionate effort in comparison to the seriousness of the unsatisfactory performance or attendance in question,

(f) necessary and proportionate for the protection of the welfare and safety of any informant or witness, or

(g) otherwise in the public interest.

(5) The relevant authority may, subject to paragraph (5), delegate any of its functions under these Regulations to—

(a) a member of the MDP of at least the rank of inspector, or

(b) a staff member who, in the opinion of the relevant authority, is of at least a similar level of seniority to an inspector.

(6) Where the relevant authority delegates its functions under regulation 31, a decision under sub-paragraph (a) or (c) of regulation 31(1) must be authorised by a senior officer.

PART 2 — General

Police friend

4

(1) The officer concerned may choose—

(a) an MDP officer,

(b) an officer from a relevant force,

(d) a person nominated by the officer’s staff association,

who is not otherwise involved in the matter, to act as a police friend.

(2) The police friend may—

(a) advise the officer concerned throughout the proceedings under these Regulations,

(b) represent the officer at any meeting under these Regulations, unless the officer has the right to be legally represented under regulation 5 and chooses to be so represented,

(d) accompany the officer to any meeting which the officer is required to attend under these Regulations.

(3) Where the police friend is an MDP officer, the chief constable must permit the police friend to use a reasonable amount of duty time for the purposes referred to in paragraph (2).

(4) Where the police friend is a staff member, the Secretary of State for Defence must permit that person to use a reasonable amount of duty time for the purposes referred to in paragraph (2).

Legal and other representation

5

(1) Where the officer concerned is required to attend a third stage meeting under regulation 31, the officer has the right to be legally represented at the meeting by a relevant lawyer of the officer’s choice.

(2) If the officer concerned chooses not to be legally represented—

(a) the meeting may take place and the officer may be dismissed or be subject to any other outcome ordered under regulation 45(2) or (6) without being legally represented, and

(b) the panel conducting the meeting may nevertheless be advised by a relevant lawyer at the meeting in accordance with regulation 41(3).

(3) Except in a case where the officer concerned has the right to be legally represented and chooses to be so represented, the officer may be represented at a meeting under these Regulations only by a police friend.

(4) A third stage meeting under regulation 31 must not take place unless the officer concerned has been notified in writing of the effect of this regulation.

Provision of notices or documents

6

Where any written notice or document is to be given to the officer concerned under these Regulations, it must be—

(a) given to the officer in person,

(b) left with a person at, or sent by recorded delivery to, the officer’s last known address,

(c) given to the officer in person by the officer’s police friend where the police friend has agreed with the relevant authority to deliver the notice or document, or

(d) given to the officer in any other manner agreed between the person who is required to give the notice or document and the officer.

Procedure at meetings under these Regulations

7

(1) Where the officer concerned participates in a third stage meeting by video link or other means under regulation 37(9) or otherwise does not attend a meeting under these Regulations, the officer may nevertheless be represented at that meeting by—

(a) a police friend, or

(b) where the officer was required to attend the third stage meeting under regulation 31, the officer’s relevant lawyer.

(2) Where the officer concerned does not participate in a third stage meeting by video link or other means under regulation 37(9) or otherwise does not attend a meeting under these Regulations, the meeting may be proceeded with and concluded in the absence of the officer whether or not the officer is so represented.

(3) During any meeting under these Regulations, the person representing the officer concerned may—

(a) address the meeting in order to do any or all of the following—

(i) put the case of the officer,

(ii) sum up that case,

(iii) respond on behalf of the officer to any view expressed at the meeting,

(iv) make representations concerning any aspect of proceedings under these Regulations, and

(v) in the case of a third stage meeting only, subject to paragraph (7), ask questions of any witnesses;

(b) confer with the officer.

(4) Where the person representing the officer concerned is a relevant lawyer, the police friend may also confer with the officer.

(5) Where the officer concerned is participating in a third stage meeting by video link or other means in accordance with regulation 37(9), the person representing the officer or (if different) the police friend (or both) may also participate in the third stage meeting by such means together with the officer.

(6) The police friend or relevant lawyer of the officer concerned may not answer any questions asked of the officer during a meeting.

(7) The panel chair must determine whether any question should be put to a witness at a third stage meeting.

(8) At any meeting under these Regulations, the person or panel conducting the meeting may not make a finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance or gross incompetence unless—

(a) the person or panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there has been unsatisfactory performance or attendance or gross incompetence, or

(b) the officer concerned admits unsatisfactory performance or attendance or gross incompetence.

(9) The person conducting or chairing a meeting under these Regulations may allow any document to be considered at that meeting notwithstanding that a copy of it has not been—

(a) given to the person by the officer concerned in accordance with regulation 15(9), 18(6)(b), 22(8), 26(6)(b) or 35(3),

(b) given to the officer concerned in accordance with regulation 15(2) or (3), 22(2), 30(2) or 32(2), or

Nominated persons

8

(1) A senior manager may appoint another person (a “nominated person”) to carry out any of the functions of the line manager or the second line manager in these Regulations.

(2) A person appointed to carry out any of the functions of the line manager under paragraph (1) may not also be appointed under that paragraph to carry out any of the functions of the second line manager.

(3) A person appointed to carry out any of the functions of the second line manager under paragraph (1) may not also be appointed under that paragraph to carry out any of the functions of the line manager.

(4) A nominated person must be a member of the MDP or a staff member and must be, in the opinion of the relevant authority, of at least the same or equivalent rank or grade as the person whose functions the nominated person is carrying out.

(5) Where a nominated person is appointed, references in these Regulations to a line manager or a second line manager, as the case may be, must be construed as references to the nominated person, in relation to the functions which the nominated person has been appointed to carry out.

Reference to certain periods

9

(1) The relevant authority may, on the application of the officer concerned or otherwise, extend the period specified in accordance with any of the regulations mentioned in paragraph (2) if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

(2) The regulations are—

(a) regulation 16(6)(c),

(b) regulation 24(6)(c), and

(3) Unless the relevant authority is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances making it appropriate, any such period may not be extended if the extension would result in the total length of that period exceeding 12 months.

(4) Where an extension is granted under paragraph (1) of a period specified under a regulation mentioned in paragraph (2), any reference in these Regulations to such period is to be construed as a reference to that period as so extended.

Suspension of certain periods

10

(1) Any reference in these Regulations to a period mentioned in paragraph (2) does not include any time when the officer concerned is taking extended special unpaid leave.

(2) A period is—

(a) a period specified in accordance with regulation 16(6)(c);

(b) the validity period of a written improvement notice specified in regulation 17(4);

(d) the validity period of a final written improvement notice specified in regulation 25(4);

(e) a period specified under regulation 45(7)(c), (d) or (8)(a);

(f) the validity period of a final written improvement notice extended under regulation 45(8)(c).

Meeting following investigation by the Director General

11

(1) The relevant authority must direct the line manager of the officer concerned to take the action specified in paragraph (2), (3) or (4), as the case may be, where—

(a) regulation 31 does not apply, and

(b) the relevant authority—

(i) receives an investigator’s report submitted under paragraph 22 or 24A of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (final reports on investigations)[^f00037], and in making a determination under paragraph 24(6) (action by the relevant authority in response to an investigation report)[^f00038] of 24C(4) of that Schedule (action by the Director General in response to an investigation report)[^f00039], considers that the performance of the MDP officer is unsatisfactory,

(ii) has a duty under paragraph 23(5B) of that Schedule (duties of relevant authority in relation to direction by Director General to bring disciplinary proceedings)[^f00040] to comply with a direction to bring disciplinary proceedings, following a determination under paragraph 23(5A)(b) of that Schedule (duties of Director General on receipt or completion of report on investigation)[^f00041] that a person’s performance is unsatisfactory,

(iii) accepts a recommendation made under paragraph 25(4C)(c) of that Schedule (reviews with respect to an investigation)[^f00042] that misconduct proceedings of the form specified in the recommendation are brought,

(iv) accepts a recommendation made under paragraph 25(4E)(c) of that Schedule that misconduct proceedings of the form specified in the recommendation are brought,

(v) accepts a recommendation made under paragraph 27(3A) of that Schedule (recommendation of Director General to relevant authority)[^f00043] in relation to the unsatisfactory performance of an MDP officer, or

(vi) has a duty under paragraph 27(4)(b) of that Schedule (duties with respect to disciplinary proceedings etc)[^f00044] to comply with a direction to give effect to a recommendation referred to in paragraph (iii) or (v).

(2) In a case where—

(a) the officer concerned has received a written improvement notice under regulation 17 or 45 in relation to unsatisfactory performance which is similar to or connected with the unsatisfactory performance to which the determination mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)(i) or (ii) or the recommendation mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)(iii), (iv) or (v) relates, and

(b) the validity period of the written improvement notice, within the meaning of regulation 17(4) or 45(7)(d), has not expired,

the line manager must require the officer to attend a second stage meeting.

(3) In a case where—

(a) the officer concerned has received a final written improvement notice under regulation 25 or 45 in relation to unsatisfactory performance which is similar to or connected with the unsatisfactory performance to which the determination mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)(i) or (ii) or the recommendation mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)(iii), (iv) or (v) relates, and

(b) the validity period of the final written improvement notice, within the meaning of—

(i) regulation 25(4) or regulation 45(7)(d), or,

(ii) where the period is extended under regulation 45(8), regulation 45(8)(c),

has not expired,

the line manager must require the officer to attend a third stage meeting.

(4) In any other case, the line manager must require the officer concerned to attend a first stage meeting.

(5) The line manager must comply with a direction given by the relevant authority under paragraph (1).

(6) Where an MDP officer is required to attend a meeting under this regulation—

(a) regulations 15 to 20 apply, if the meeting is a first stage meeting,

(b) regulations 22 to 28 apply, if the meeting is a second stage meeting, and

but this is subject to paragraphs (7) and (8).

(7) Subject to the harm test under these Regulations (see regulation 3(4)), the duty to provide documents in each of regulations 15(2), 22(2) and 30(2) has effect as a duty to provide the officer concerned with a copy of—

(a) the investigator’s report referred to in paragraph (1)(b)(i);

(b) any determination of the Director General mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)(ii);

(8) Where an MDP officer is required to attend a third stage meeting under paragraph (3) by reason of the fact that the officer is subject to a final written improvement notice issued under regulation 45—

(a) the meeting must be conducted by the same panel as conducted the initial third stage meeting,

(b) regulation 47(11) to (15) apply in relation to that panel, and

(c) the officer concerned does not have the right to object to panel members under regulation 34, except in accordance with regulation 47(15).

(9) Where the relevant authority fails to make the determination referred to in paragraph (1)(b)(i) (in so far as it involves consideration of the performance of an MDP officer) before the end of 15 working days beginning with the first working day after receipt of the investigator’s report, it must notify the officer concerned of the reason for this.

Provision of information to the Director General

12

(1) This regulation applies in a case where—

(a) paragraph 18 or 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (investigations directed by or by the Director General) applied, or

(b) paragraph 16 of that Schedule (investigations by the authority on its own behalf) applied and—

(i) the Director General—

(aa) made a recommendation under paragraph 25(4C)(c) of that Schedule (reviews with respect to an investigation) which the relevant authority accepted;

(bb) made a recommendation under paragraph 27(3A) of that Schedule (recommendation of Director General to authority) which the relevant authority accepted, or

(cc) gave a direction to the relevant authority under paragraph 27(4)(a) of that Schedule (direction by Director General where authority does not take steps to secure that full effect is given to Director General’s recommendation), or

(ii) the Secretary of State for Defence made a recommendation under paragraph 25(4E)(c) of that Schedule (reviews with respect to an investigation) which the relevant authority accepted.

(2) Where this regulation applies, the relevant authority must—

(a) send the Director General a copy of—

(i) any written record and written improvement notice given to the officer concerned under regulation 17(5);

(ii) any written notice and written summary given to the officer concerned under regulation 20(9);

(iii) any written notice as to improvement in performance or attendance under regulation 21(1)(b);

(iv) any written record and final written improvement notice given to the officer concerned under regulation 25(5);

(v) any written notice and written summary given to the officer concerned under regulation 28(9);

(vi) any written notice as to improvement in performance or attendance under regulation 29(1)(b);

(vii) any written decision given to the officer concerned under regulation 44(3);

(viii) any final written improvement notice issued or extended under regulation 45(3);

Reading this document does not replace reading the official text published on legislation.gov.uk. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies arising from the conversion of the original CLML XML to this format.

This text is published under legislation.gov.uk's own terms of reuse, not a Legalize or public-domain licence. legislation.gov.uk
Open Government Licence v3.0 (attribution required)
© Crown and database right. Derived from content available under the Open Government Licence v3.0 from legislation.gov.uk.