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

(ii) the Ombudsman is required under regulation 24(6) to present the case.

(3) Where paragraph (2)(b) applies, the relevant authority must—

(a) consult the Director General or the Ombudsman, as appropriate, about the contents of the written notice to be given under paragraph (1) and on the application of the harm test under paragraph (1)(c),

(b) comply with any direction given by the Director General or the Ombudsman, as appropriate, in relation to the matters specified in paragraph (a), and

(c) provide the Director General or the Ombudsman, as appropriate, with a copy of the written notice given under paragraph (1).

Notice of accelerated misconduct hearing

52

(1) The relevant authority must specify a date for the accelerated misconduct hearing which must be not less than 10 and not more than 15 working days after the date on which notice is given under regulation 51(1) (notice of referral to accelerated conduct hearing) and must as soon as practicable—

(a) notify the officer concerned and the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing of the date, time and place of that hearing, and

(b) notify the officer concerned of the effect of regulation 7(1) to (3) in relation to an accelerated misconduct hearing.

(2) Wherethe Director General has made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present a case or is entitled to attend the accelerated misconduct hearing to make representations under regulation 58(1), the relevant authority must notify the Director General of the date, time and place of the hearing.

(3) When the Ombudsman is required under regulation 24(6) to present a case, or is entitled to attend the accelerated misconduct hearing to make representations under regulation 58(1), the relevant authority must notify the Ombudsman of the date, time and place of the hearing.

Public notification of accelerated misconduct hearing

53

(1) The person conducting or chairing an accelerated misconduct hearing may require the relevant authority to give notice of the hearing which contains information relating to one or more of—

(a) the name of the officer concerned,

(b) the date of the hearing,

(d) the place at which the hearing will take place, and

(e) the conduct that is the subject matter of the case and how that conduct is alleged to amount to gross misconduct, as set out in the notice given in accordance with regulation 51(2).

(2) Where the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing requires notice to be given in accordance with paragraph (1), the relevant authority must publish the notice on its website as soon as practicable after notice of the hearing is given under regulation 52(1).

(3) Any person to whom this paragraph applies may make written representations to the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing in relation to—

(a) whether, and (if so) the extent to which, the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing should exclude any person from the whole or part of the hearing under regulation 59(2)(a),

(b) whether the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing should impose any conditions under regulation 59(2)(b),

(c) whether the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing should give directions prohibiting the publication of any matter relating to the proceedings under regulation 59(2)(c),

(d) in the light of the representations made under sub-paragraphs (a) to (c)—

(i) whether the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing should require notice to be given under paragraph (1),

(ii) which types of information mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) to (e) should be included in any such notice.

(4) Paragraph (3) applies to—

(a) the officer concerned,

(b) the relevant authority,

(d) any interested person,

(e) the Director General, and

(f) the Ombudsman.

(5) Written representations, in relation to the matters specified in paragraph (3)(a) to (c), may also be made by any representative of the media to the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing.

(6) Any written representations made in accordance with paragraph (3) or (5), as the case may be, must be provided no later than the date specified by the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing for provision of such representations.

Procedure on receipt of notice

54

(1) Before the end of 7 working days beginning with the first working day after the written notice is given to the officer concerned under regulation 51(1), the officer concerned must give the relevant authority—

(a) written notice of whether or not they accept that their conduct amounts to gross misconduct;

(b) where they accept that their conduct amounts to gross misconduct, any written submission they wish to make in mitigation;

(i) the allegations they dispute and their account of the relevant events, and

(ii) any arguments on points of law they wish to be considered by the person or panel conducting the accelerated misconduct hearing;

(d) a copy of any document they intend to rely on at the accelerated misconduct hearing.

(2) Where the Director General has made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present a case, the officer concerned must provide the Director General with a copy of the documents they have provided in accordance with paragraph (1).

(3) Where the Ombudsman is required under regulation 24(6) to present a case, the officer concerned must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the documents they have provided in accordance with paragraph (1).

Persons conducting accelerated misconduct hearing

55

(1) Where the officer concerned is not a senior officer, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by the chief constable.

(2) Where the chief constable is an interested party or is unavailable, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by the chief officer of police of a relevant force.

(3) Where the officer concerned is a senior officer, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by a panel of persons specified in paragraph (4), appointed by the relevant authority.

(4) Those persons are—

(a) a chair selected in accordance with regulation 27(4)(a),

(b) the Inspector of Constabulary, and

Documents to be supplied

56

(1) Prior to the accelerated misconduct hearing the relevant authority must supply the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing with a copy of—

(a) the notice given to the officer concerned under regulation 51(1),

(b) the other documents given to the officer under regulation 51(1),

(i) regulation 54, and

(ii) where paragraph (2) applies, regulation 30(2) and (3),

(d) where the officer concerned does not accept that the officer’s conduct amounts to gross misconduct, any other documents that, in the opinion of the relevant authority, should be considered at the hearing.

(2) This paragraph applies in a case where misconduct proceedings have been delayed by virtue of regulation 9(3) and the relevant authority has certified the case as one where the special conditions are satisfied following a determination made under regulation 49(3).

(3) Prior to the accelerated misconduct hearing, the relevant authority must provide the officer concerned with—

(a) a list of the documents supplied under paragraph (1), and

(b) a copy of any such document, where it has not already been supplied.

(4) Where the Director General has made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present a case, the duty specified in paragraph (1) to supply the specified documents to the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing lies with the Director General and not with the relevant authority.

(5) Where the Ombudsman is required under regulation 24(6) to present a case, the duty specified in paragraph (1) to supply the specified documents to the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing lies with the Ombudsman and not with the relevant authority.

Attendance of officer concerned at accelerated misconduct hearing

57

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the officer concerned must attend the accelerated misconduct hearing.

(2) Where the officer concerned informs the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing in advance that the officer is unable to attend on grounds which the person conducting or chairing the hearing considers reasonable, that person may allow the officer to participate in the hearing by video link or other means.

(3) Where under paragraph (2) the officer concerned is allowed to and does so participate in the accelerated misconduct hearing, or where the officer otherwise does not attend the accelerated misconduct hearing—

(a) the officer may nonetheless be represented at that hearing by—

(i) a police friend, or

(ii) a relevant lawyer (in which case the police friend may also attend), and

(b) the hearing may be proceeded with and concluded in the absence of the officer whether or not the officer is so represented.

(4) Where the officer concerned is represented in accordance with paragraph (3), the police friend or relevant lawyer of the officer, or both, as the case may be, may participate using the video link or other means where such means are also used by the officer.

Participation of Director General, Ombudsman and investigator at accelerated misconduct hearing

58

(1) The Director General or, as the case may be, Ombudsman, may attend an accelerated misconduct hearing to make representations in any case where—

(a) the complaint has been investigated under paragraphs 18 or 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act or section 54(2), (3)(a) or section 55(3), (5) or (6) of the 1998 Act,

(b) directed or supervised, under external procedures, the investigation of a complaint, or

(i) where the Director General—

(aa) made a recommendation under paragraph 25(4C)(c) of that Schedule (duties with respect to disciplinary proceedings) which the relevant authority accepted, or

(bb) gave a direction under paragraph 27(4)(a) of that Schedule (duties with respect to disciplinary proceedings), or

(ii) where the Ombudsman made a recommendation under section 59(2) of the 1998 Act which the chief constable accepted.

(2) Where the Director General or Ombudsman so attends the accelerated misconduct hearing—

(a) the Director General or Ombudsman may be represented by a relevant lawyer,

(b) the Director General or Ombudsman must notify the complainant or any interested person prior to the hearing, and

(c) the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must notify the officer concerned prior to the hearing.

(3) The investigator or a nominated person must attend the accelerated misconduct hearing on the request of the person conducting or chairing the hearing to answer questions.

(4) For the purposes of this regulation, a “nominated person” is a person who, in the opinion of—

(a) the relevant authority, or

(b) in a case investigated under paragraph 18 or 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act where under external procedures the Director General directed the investigation or carried out the investigation, the Director General, or

(c) in a case investigated under section 54(2), (3)(a) or section 55(3), (5) or (6) of the 1998 Act where under external procedures the Ombudsman investigated the case, or supervised the investigation, the Ombudsman,

has sufficient knowledge of the investigation of the case to be able to assist the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing.

(5) Paragraph (1) does not apply in a case where—

(a) the Director General has made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present a case, or

(b) the Ombudsman is required under regulation 24(6) to present a case.

Reporting restrictions and participation at accelerated misconduct hearing

59

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an accelerated misconduct hearing must be in public.

(2) Having considered any representations received under regulation 53(3) and (5), the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing may—

(a) in relation to the attendance at the hearing of a person under this regulation, exclude any person as they see fit from the whole or a part of it,

(b) impose such conditions as they see fit relating to the attendance under this regulation of any person at the hearing in order to facilitate the proper conduct of it, and

(3) Where the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing excludes a person under paragraph (2)(a) which has the effect of excluding a representative of the media, or gives a direction under paragraph (2)(c), any representative of the media may make representations to the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing about the exclusion or, as the case may be, direction.

Notice to complainant and interested persons of accelerated misconduct hearing

60

(1) This regulation applies in the case of an accelerated misconduct hearing arising from the investigation of a conduct matter or complaint under external procedures.

(2) The relevant authority must notify the complainant and any interested person of the date, time and place of the accelerated misconduct hearing and of their right to make representations under regulation 53(3).

Procedure at accelerated misconduct hearing

61

(1) The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must determine the procedure at the hearing and, in so far as it is set out in these Regulations, must determine it in accordance with these Regulations.

(2) The accelerated misconduct hearing must not proceed unless the officer concerned has been notified of the effect of regulation 7(1) to (3) in relation to an accelerated misconduct hearing.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing may from time to time adjourn the hearing if it appears to the person to be necessary or expedient to do so.

(4) The accelerated misconduct hearing must not, except in exceptional circumstances, be adjourned solely to allow the complainant or any interested person to attend.

(5) At the beginning of the accelerated misconduct hearing, the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must give the officer the opportunity to say whether or not the officer accepts that the officer’s conduct amounts to gross misconduct.

(6) No witnesses other than the officer concerned may give evidence at the accelerated misconduct hearing and the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must determine whether and by whom the officer concerned can be questioned.

(7) The person representing the relevant authority may—

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

(i) put the case of the authority,

(ii) sum up that case,

(iii) respond on behalf of the authority to any view expressed at the accelerated misconduct hearing, and

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

(b) confer with the authority.

(8) The person representing the officer concerned may—

(a) address the hearing 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 accelerated misconduct hearing, and

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

(b) if the officer concerned is present at the accelerated misconduct hearing or is participating in it by video link or other means in accordance with regulation 57(2), confer with the officer.

(9) Where the person representing the officer concerned is a relevant lawyer, the police friend of the officer may also confer with the officer in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (8)(b).

(10) The police friend or relevant lawyer of the officer concerned may not answer any questions asked of the officer during the accelerated misconduct hearing.

(11) The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing may allow any document to be considered at the hearing notwithstanding that a copy of it has not been supplied—

(a) by the officer concerned to the relevant authority in accordance with regulation 54(1)(d), or

(b) to the officer in accordance with regulation 51(1).

(12) Where evidence is given or considered at the accelerated misconduct hearing that the officer concerned—

(a) on being questioned by an investigator, at any time after the officer was given written notice under regulation 16(1) of these Regulations or external procedures, or

(b) in submitting any information or by not submitting any information at all under (or, where paragraph (14) applies, regulation 17(1) or 31(2) or (3)) or under external procedures,

failed to mention, any fact relied on in the officer’s case at the accelerated misconduct hearing, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time, the officer could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned or when providing such information, paragraph (13) applies.

(13) Where this paragraph applies, the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.

(14) This paragraph applies where the case was certified as one where the special conditions are satisfied following a determination made under regulation 49(4), being a case where misconduct proceedings have been delayed by virtue of regulation 9(3).

(15) The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must review the facts of the case and decide whether or not the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to gross misconduct.

(16) The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must not find that the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to gross misconduct unless—

(a) they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is the case, or

(b) the officer admits it is the case.

(17) At an accelerated misconduct hearing conducted by a panel, any decision must be based on a majority but must not indicate whether it was taken unanimously or by a majority.

(18) Where the Director General has made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present a case, paragraph (7) must be read as if for “The person representing the relevant authority” there were substituted “The Director General”.

(19) Where the Ombudsman is required under regulation 24(6) to present a case, paragraph (7) must be read as if for “The person representing the relevant authority” there were substituted “The Ombudsman”.

Outcome of accelerated misconduct hearing

62

(1) Where the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing finds that the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to gross misconduct, they must impose disciplinary action, which, subject to the provisions of this regulation, may be—

(a) a final written warning,

(b) reduction in rank, or

(2) The disciplinary action has effect from the date on which it is notified to the officer concerned.

(3) Where, on the date of the severity assessment under regulation 13(1) or under external procedures, the officer concerned had a final written warning in force, a final written warning must not be given.

(4) Where a final written warning is given, that warning remains in force for—

(a) a period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it was notified to the officer concerned, or

(b) such longer period as the person or panel considering the question of disciplinary action may determine, up to a maximum of 5 years beginning with the day on which it was notified to the officer.

(5) The reference to a period in paragraph (4)(a) and (b) does not include any time when the officer concerned is taking extended special unpaid leave.

(6) Reduction in rank may only be imposed under this regulation where the person or panel imposing the disciplinary action consider this is an appropriate sanction, taking into account the views of the relevant authority, including in relation to the likely operational impact.

(7) Where, on the date of the severity assessment under regulation 13(1) or under external procedures, the officer concerned is subject to a reduction in rank under these Regulations or the Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, a reduction in rank must not be imposed.

(8) Where the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing finds that the conduct of the officer concerned does not amount to gross misconduct, they may—

(a) dismiss the case, or

(b) return the case to the relevant authority to deal with in accordance with Part 4.

(9) Where the case is returned to the relevant authority under paragraph (8)(b), the relevant authority must proceed in accordance with Part 4, subject to regulation 23(1)) being read as if the words “Subject to regulation 47, on receipt of the investigator’s report under regulation 20(1) or an equivalent report made under external procedures,” were omitted.

(10) Where the question of disciplinary action is being considered, the person or panel considering it—

(a) must have regard to the record of police 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,

(i) the officer,

(ii) if the officer is legally represented, the officer’s relevant lawyer or, where 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),

(iv) the Director General or the Director General’s relevant lawyer, where the Director General presented the case on behalf of the relevant authority, and

(v) the Ombudsman or the Ombudsman’s relevant lawyer, where the Ombudsman presented the case on behalf of the relevant authority,

an opportunity to make oral or written representations before any such question is determined, including on the appropriate level of disciplinary action, 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 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.

Notification of outcome

63

(1) The person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing must, before the end of a period of 5 working days beginning with the first working day after the completion of the accelerated misconduct hearing, submit a report to the relevant authority, setting out—

(a) the finding of the person or panel conducting the accelerated misconduct hearing;

(b) the reasons for that finding;

(2) A report under this regulation must include notice of the right of appeal under the Appeals Tribunals Regulations.

(3) The relevant authority must, as soon as practicable after receiving the report under paragraph (1), notify the officer concerned of the outcome by sending the officer a copy of that report.

(4) The relevant authority must send a copy of any report under this regulation to—

(a) the Director General or the Ombudsman, in any case where the Director General or the Ombudsman—

(i) presented the case, or

(ii) was entitled to attend to make representations under regulation 58(1), and

(b) the complainant and any interested person, in any case to which regulation 60 (accelerated misconduct hearing arising from the investigation of a conduct matter or complaint under external procedures) applies.

(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—

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.