New Met police video

[Fedster + 1,307]

Data on outcomes compiled for the first time

Chairmen of misconduct panels have dismissed officers in just half of cases since the law to make them independent came into effect, PoliceOracle.com can reveal.

A Freedom of Information request sent to all forces in England and Wales found that, of the 170 officers who faced misconduct hearings chaired by a lawyer since January 1 last year, 86 were dismissed.

This is a total of 51 per cent.

The Home Office changed the law last year to ensure that gross misconduct hearings are overseen by a legally qualified chairman rather than a senior officer.

In Greater Manchester, just 13 per cent of officers who faced misconduct hearings chaired by legally qualified people were dismissed.

Similarly in the West Midlands, lawyers dismissed just 18 per cent of those who appeared before them, while in the Met the figure was 27 per cent.

Last month, Met Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey told the London Assembly that the force is trying to make its standards well-known.

“One of the concerns we had at the beginning was we thought legally qualified chairs would be more reluctant to sack police officers, and they are,” he said.

“The position we had in the Met prior to this was we had a dedicated commander who did that.

“Being clear about our own standards as an organisation is absolutely crucial so there is work going on with legally qualified chairs of panels to make sure we’ve got those – where’s the bar for what is acceptable, and the values around that.”

Detective Superintendent Ray Marley, College of Policing lead for integrity and professional standards, said new guidance will be released soon.

“This will lay out certain types of misconduct we say are serious and would expect someone committing acts like that to receive sanctions on the serious end of the scale,” he said. 

Eight forces, including Cleveland, Dorset and Kent, failed to respond to our FOI.

If notices were served prior to the new law being implemented, hearings can still be chaired by senior officers – with a number of forces deciding to do this over the last 12 months.

Special case hearings, where there is sufficient evidence to make a decision without further evidence, are still chaired by senior officers.

In the Met last year 31 officers were dismissed in such hearings, with two others receiving final written warnings

View on Police Oracle

[Shmook + 532]

It doesn't mean they were reluctant to sack serving officers, it means that after an independent hearing, grounds for dismissal were not warranted.

Another misleading headline.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Shmook

[BlueBob + 701]

21 minutes ago, Shmook said:

It doesn't mean they were reluctant to sack serving officers, it means that after an independent hearing, grounds for dismissal were not warranted.

Another misleading headline.

The way I read it, especially due to the middle section, it  seemed to be that police decision makers tend to set a differing standard  or criteria to the legal minded.  Hence the comments about our own standards as an organisation is absolutely crucial so there is work going on with legally qualified chairs of panels to make sure we’ve got those – where’s the bar for what is acceptable, and the values around that.”

[Shmook + 532]

Fair enough. differing standards may not mean reluctance, though

[Zulu 22 + 4,638]

The figures quoted are perhaps misleading as it gives no information on how many officers were dismissed, or required to resign under the old system.

Having acted as a "Friend" in many discipline cases I found that when the officer was entitled to legal representation that representation could be more forceful in criticism of the complaint, and/or the investigation. Again for a dismissal the hearing had to be before the Chief Constable and you could then imply that he must have a prior knowledge of the case, which under the regulations he was not supposed to have.

I do not have the correct figures but from my time as a "Friend" and even assisting a Lawyer I can only ever remember a handful of case which brought about dismissal, but most of those were fully deserving of dismissal.

I wonder if the figures include someone who was allowed to resign rather than face a hearing.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

Data on outcomes
“One of the concerns we had at the beginning was we thought legally qualified chairs would be more reluctant to sack police officers, and they are,” he said.
“The position we had in the Met prior to this was we had a dedicated commander who did that.
“Being clear about our own standards as an organisation is absolutely crucial so there is work going on with legally qualified chairs of panels to make sure we’ve got those – where’s the bar for what is acceptable, and the values around that.”

He just doesn't get it. People should be fired on the basis of what is proportionate and necessary, but not on the basis of what the MET think someone should be sacked for because it is suddenly politically expedient that month.

Everything he said justifies why Panel Chairs should be independent.


Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

This is disgusting.

There is a known issue with the standard of investigation of police officers, in that they lack integrity and fairness (contrary to the publics view).

Independent chairs are far from soft and in cases deserving of dismissal they haven't held back from castigating the officer involved. However where they have seen, for want of a better term, prosecutorial misconduct they have not held back - quite rightly.

Many police officers, since the misconduct changes of the late 90s to the civil standard, have been dismissed on the same facts and same basic charge which they have been acquitted of in criminal proceedings. This has always sat uncomfortably with me. There have been a fair number of miscarriages of justice in this area with officers convicted on unsafe grounds, thrown under the bus by the force only for the officer to be acquitted on appeal. This has then  lead to 'face saving' dismissals by the forces involved because they won't come out and say 'we got it wrong'.

[JulietAlpha1 + 515]

Surely one of the problems with the police discipline system is the draconian nature of it. An independent person is the fairest way to go about the hearing and the forces are getting funny because they can't sack enough of us... And they wonder why we all think they're out to throw us under the bus all the time.

Edited January 19, 2017 by JulietAlpha1

[BlueBob + 701]

6 hours ago, JulietAlpha1 said:

Surely one of the problems with the police discipline system is the draconian nature of it. An independent person is the fairest way to go about the hearing and the forces are getting funny because they can't sack enough of us... And they wonder why we all think they're out to throw us under the bus all the time.

One of the problems of the discipline system, IMHO, is it includes than intangible, undefined aspect about integrity and what is so widely encompassing 'conduct not becoming of a police officer'    Perhaps lay people don't grasp it as readily as a serving officer.  From within, it can seem draconian or lenient depending on  ones take on the scenario.  There is no easy solution, but to put it into context, when you read about how people get sacked and the decisions of employment tribunals of the actions being fair or unfair, its applies across all types of employment discipline and not just the police.  

[Sherlock 117]

Police Oracle wrote this? After reading it I had thought it was a link-through to the Daily Mail.

A 'Legally Qualified Chairperson' is exactly that. Legally qualified. A Chief Constable or the like, arguably, is not. How many people have lost their careers for mistakes that were not tantamount to gross misconduct, only to be used as pawns for the Chief Officer's own political PR/career acceleration?

I fully welcome the movement, and chastise the former state of having your own Force passing judgment on the outcome of a person's future for 'Likes'.


-Sherlock
Sent from my iPhone using Police Community

[BlueBob + 701]

6 hours ago, Sherlock said:

How many people have lost their careers for mistakes that were not tantamount to gross misconduct, only to be used as pawns for the Chief Officer's own political PR/career acceleration
-Sherlock
Sent from my iPhone using Police Community

conversely of course, have some fell below the standard everyone demands of a police officer and yet remain, as you say " only to be used as pawns for the legally qualified person's own political pr/career acceleration?

perhaps the route should be a panel (3 people) making the decision.

Edited January 20, 2017 by BlueBob