Publicising Disciplinary Procedures

Written by: George Thomas
Published: 20 July 2015

From 1st May 2015, most of the provisions of the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 come into effect.

The 2015 Amendment Regulations make changes to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”).

The major change is that misconduct hearings will now be held wholly or partly in public. Previously this was only exceptionally the case. This is a very significant legal and practical change.

An additional significant change is that the 2012 Regulations now specify that a police officer who makes a protected disclosure (as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996) is not to be regarded as breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

In Whose Interest are You Acting?

Written by: George Thomas
Published: 13 July 2015

The impact of the High Court decision in James-Bowen v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the relationship between a Chief Officer and those accused of wrongdoing in civil proceedings.

The High Court confirmed that, where a Chief Officer is defending civil proceedings brought solely against him/her, there is no duty owed to individual officers whose conduct is the subject matter of the claim.

While this decision is perhaps unsurprising, the action highlights the uncomfortable position a constabulary will often find itself in where it is uncertain about the truth of an allegation made against an officer.

Ill-disciplined disclosure

Written by: Gerard Boyle KC
Published: 15 June 2015

What documents ought the Appropriate Authority to be disclosing to the officer, the panel and now the public?

One option is to supply the officer with the IO’s report “warts and all” with all statements and documents relating to the officer, together with an invitation to the officer either to agree duplication of service on the panel, or service of redacted material.

Adopting such an approach may avoid unnecessary arguments about bias and recusal on the grounds of prejudice.

However, it is attended by the risk that a complainant, or the IPCC, could complain that the AA is in breach of its Reg. 27(1) obligation.

Domestic Murder: Are the Police Liable?

Written by: James Berry
Published: 13 April 2015

The majority of the Supreme Court have once again concluded that the police owe no duty of care in negligence to members of the public who suffer harm at the hands of criminals.

However, the case of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2 has confirmed that, although there may be no claim in negligence, the police may still be liable for a breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Such claims can be brought in the domestic courts under the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.

The police may be held liable to victims (or their families) for clear failures to prevent a potentially fatal incident of domestic violence of which they have received specific warning.

Areas of Continuing Legal Risk: a Review of 2014

Written by: George Thomas
Published: 30 March 2015

A review of the reported legal decisions 2014 relating to policing demonstrates that many of the old risk areas for litigation continued to trouble chief police officers, and increasingly Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). While it is difficult for a force to protect itself from litigation following unpredictable major events, such as the London riots, there are particular aspects of policing where forces continue to face repeated litigation, or trends suggest that claims are likely to increase in the future.

The public scrutiny of police activity, and the rights of individual members of the public to bring action when their rights are infringed, are truly fundamental features of open democracy. A certain amount of civil litigation is probably an inevitable feature of modern policing. However, Chief Officers and PCCs ought to be examining carefully whether there are aspects of their police operations that are generating excessive civil claims. Reducing the incidence of such claims ought to improve the standards of policing as well as reducing the annual drain on policing budgets caused by legal claims and their associated costs.