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

• (5) Where the relevant authority determines—

• (a) that the special conditions are not satisfied, or

• (b) that, although those conditions are satisfied, the circumstances are such as to make such certification inappropriate,

it must, if the investigation was incomplete, return the case to the investigator to complete the investigation or, in any other case, proceed in accordance with Part 4.

• (6) Where the relevant authority is to proceed in accordance with Part 4, regulation 23(1) must be read as if the words “Subject to regulation 49, on receipt of the investigator’s report under regulation 20(1), or an equivalent report made under external procedures” were omitted.

• (7) Where the relevant authority certifies a case as one where the special conditions are satisfied under external procedures, it must, subject to regulation 9(3), refer it to an accelerated misconduct hearing.

50

• (1) Subject to paragraph (4), at any time after the case has been referred to an accelerated misconduct hearing but before the beginning of that hearing, the relevant authority may direct that the case be dealt with under Part 4 if it considers that the special conditions are no longer satisfied.

• (2) Where a direction is made under paragraph (1) the officer concerned must be notified before the end of 3 working days beginning with the first working day after that direction is made and the relevant authority must proceed in accordance with Part 4.

• (3) Where the relevant authority is to proceed in accordance with Part 4, regulation 23(1) must be read as if the words “Subject to regulation 49, on receipt of the investigator’s report under regulation 20(1), or an equivalent report made under external procedures” were omitted.

• (4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a case where—

• (a) the Director Generalhas given a direction under external procedures established for England and Wales to certify a case as once where the special conditions are satisfied;

• (b) the Ombudsman has given a direction under external procedures established for Northern Ireland that accelerated proceedings are brought.

51

• (1) Where a case is certified, whether under regulation 49(4) or under external procedures, as one where the special conditions are satisfied and referred to an accelerated misconduct hearing, the relevant authority must as soon as practicable give the officer concerned written notice of these matters and must supply the officer with a copy of—

• (a) the certificate issued under regulation 49(4) or under external procedures,

• (b) any statement the officer may have made to the investigator during the course of the investigation, and

• (c) subject to the harm test—

• (i) the investigator’s report or such parts of that report as relate to the officer (together with any document attached to or referred to in that report as relates to the officer), and

• (ii) any other document which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining or assisting the case.

• (2) The notice given under paragraph (1) must—

• (a) describe the conduct that is the subject matter of the case and how that conduct is alleged to amount to gross misconduct, ...

• (b) where relevant, specify that—

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

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

• (c) notify the officer concerned of the name of the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing, and

• (d) notify the officer concerned of the effect of paragraphs (2C) to (2F) of this regulation.

• (2A) Where the chief constable delegates the responsibility for conducting an accelerated misconduct hearing to another person under regulation 2(4A), the chief constable must, as soon as practicable after delegating the responsibility, give the officer concerned written notice of the name of that person and the effect of paragraphs (2C) to (2F) of this regulation.

• (2B) As soon as practicable after a legally qualified person has been appointed under regulation 55(5) in relation to the accelerated misconduct hearing, the relevant authority must give the officer concerned written notice of the name of that person and the effect of paragraphs (2C) to (2F) of this regulation.

• (2C) The officer concerned may object to any person whom the officer has been notified under the preceding provisions of this regulation is to—

• (a) conduct, or as the case may be, chair the accelerated misconduct hearing;

• (b) be the legally qualified person appointed under regulation 55(5) in relation to the accelerated misconduct hearing.

• (2D) Any such objection—

• (a) must be made in writing to—

• (i) where the objection is to the person to whom the responsibility for conducting an accelerated hearing has been delegated under regulation 2(4A), the chief constable,

• (ii) the Secretary of State, where they appointed the person in relation to whom the objection is made, or

• (iii) the relevant authority in all other cases,

• (b) must set out the grounds of objection of the officer, and

• (c) in the case of a joint accelerated misconduct hearing, must be copied to each other officer concerned,

before the end of three working days beginning with the first working day after the officer is given notice of the person’s name.

• (2E) The person or relevant authority to whom the objection was made must notify the officer concerned in writing whether they or it upholds or rejects an objection to the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing or the legally qualified person appointed under regulation 55(5).

• (2F) If the person or relevant authority upholds the objection, the person to whom the officer concerned objects must be replaced in accordance with paragraph (2G), (2I) or (2J), regulation 2(4A) or regulation 55(5), as appropriate.

• (2G) Where—

• (a) the person conducting the accelerated misconduct hearing is the chief constable, and

• (b) the objection is upheld against them,

the chief constable must delegate responsibility for conducting the accelerated misconduct hearing to another person in accordance with regulation 2(4B) and (4C).

• (2H) The delegation referred to in paragraph (2G) is to be treated as having been done under regulation 2(4A).

• (2I) Where—

• (a) the person chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing is appointed by the Secretary of State under regulation 55(4)(a)(i), and

• (b) an objection is upheld against the chair,

the Secretary of State must require the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to chair the accelerated misconduct hearing or nominate an inspector of constabulary to replace the chair appointed under regulation 55(4)(a)(i), and appoint that person to be the chair.

• (2J) Where—

• (a) the person chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing is appointed by the relevant authority under regulation 55(4)(a)(ii), and

• (b) an objection is upheld against the chair,

the relevant authority must appoint another officer to be the chair in accordance with regulation 55(4)(a)(ii).

• (2K) As soon as reasonably practicable after any such delegation or appointment, the relevant authority must give written notice to the officer concerned of the name of the new person who is to conduct or, as the case may be, chair the accelerated misconduct hearing or the new legally qualified person appointed under regulation 55(5), and of the effects of paragraphs (2L) and (2M).

• (2L) The officer concerned may object to the person who, in accordance with paragraph (2K), replaces the person in respect of whom an objection has been upheld.

• (2M) In relation to an objection under paragraph (2L)—

• (a) paragraph (2C) applies except insofar as it specifies the period of time for making an objection;

• (b) the objection must be made before the end of 3 working days beginning with the first working day after the officer concerned has been given the notice referred to in paragraph (2K);

• (c) paragraphs (2D) to (2K) apply, with the exception of the requirement in paragraph (2K) for the relevant authority to give written notice of the effects of paragraph (2L) and this paragraph.

• (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).

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.

• (1A) Where—

• (a) the officer concerned raises an objection under regulation 51(2C) or (2L), and

• (b) that objection is upheld,

the relevant authority must specify a date to replace that specified under paragraph (1), which must be not less than 10 and not more than 15 working days after the date on which the person in respect of whom the objection was made is replaced.

• (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.

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,

• (c) the time 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,

• (c) the complainant,

• (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.

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;

• (c) where they do not accept that their conduct amounts to gross misconduct, written notice of—

• (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).

55

• (1) Where the officer concerned is not a senior officer, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by the chief constable (but see regulation 2(4A)).

• (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• (3) Where the officer concerned is a senior officer, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by a panel of persons constituted in accordance with paragraph (4).

• (4) The panel of persons must comprise—

• (a) a chair, who must be—

• (i) where the officer concerned is the chief constable, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary or an inspector of constabulary nominated by the Chief Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State;

• (ii) in every other case, a more senior officer than the officer concerned who is a member of a relevant force, appointed by the relevant authority;

• (b) a person appointed in accordance with regulation 27(4)(b);

• (c) a person appointed in accordance with regulation 27(4)(c).

• (5) A legally qualified person must be appointed by the Secretary of State as an adviser to the chair and the panel conducting an accelerated misconduct hearing, to be selected in accordance with regulation 27(5B).

• (6) The legally qualified person appointed under paragraph (5) must provide advice to the chair and the panel conducting an accelerated misconduct hearing, on request by the chair, in respect of any legal or procedural matters relating to the accelerated misconduct hearing.

• (7) The chair and the panel conducting an accelerated misconduct hearing must have regard to any advice provided by the legally qualified person under paragraph (6).

• (8) Where the officer concerned in not a senior officer, paragraph (9) applies if—

• (a) the chief constable—

• (i) when their view was sought in respect of the case under paragraph 23(5A)(a)(i) or (iii) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (action by the Director General in relation to an investigation report under paragraph 22), expressed a view on the matter that differed from the determination of the Director General under paragraph 23(5A)(b) of that Schedule, or

• (ii) notified the Director General under paragraph 25(4D)(a) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (reviews with respect to an investigation) that they did not accept a recommendation of the Director General under paragraph 25(4C)(c)(i) of that Schedule, or

• (b) the chief constable has been directed by the Ombudsman under section 59(5) of the 1998 Act to bring misconduct proceedings.

• (9) Where this paragraph applies, the Director General or Ombudsman, as the case may be, may, within 10 working days beginning with the day after the day on which—

• (a) the determination or recommendation referred to in paragraph (8)(a)(i) or (ii) was made, or

• (b) the direction referred to in paragraph (8)(b) was given,

make written representations to the chief constable as to whether they should delegate responsibility for chairing the misconduct hearing to a member of a relevant force.

• (10) Where representations have been made under paragraph (9) the chief constable must—

• (a) have regard to those representations, and

• (b) within 10 working days beginning with the day on which the representations were received, determine whether or not to delegate responsibility for chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing to an MDP officer, a former officer, a staff member, or to a member of a relevant force.

• (11) For the purpose of section 4(4) of the 1987 Act (power to prescribe “the panel” for the purpose of representation at proceedings), the panel of persons or the person specified by this regulation to conduct an accelerated misconduct hearing is prescribed as “the panel”.

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),

• (c) the documents provided by the officer under—

• (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.

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.

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

• (c) the complaint has been investigated under paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act or section 57 of the 1998 Act—

• (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.

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

• (c) give such directions as they think appropriate prohibiting the publication of any matter relating to the hearing.

• (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.

• (4) Where the person conducting or chairing an accelerated misconduct hearing exercises their power under paragraph (2) to exclude any person from all or part of the hearing, impose conditions that have the effect of excluding any person from all or part of the hearing or prohibit the publication of any matter relating to the hearing, the person must inform the Secretary of State in writing of their reason for taking such action.

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).

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).

• (14A) The advice provided by the legally qualified person under regulation 55(6) must be given to the parties.

• (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”.

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

• (c) dismissal without notice.

• (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,

• (c) must give—

• (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.

63

• (1) Subject to paragraph (1B), 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;

• (c) any disciplinary action imposed , and

• (d) where it was found that the conduct of the officer concerned amounted to gross misconduct but the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice, the reasons for that decision.

• (1A) The person chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing under regulation 55—

• (a) may require the legally qualified person appointed under regulation 55(5) to provide advice in respect of legal and procedural issues relating to the report under paragraph (1), and

• (b) must have regard to any advice provided under sub-paragraph (a).

• (1B) The person chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing under regulation 55 may delegate responsibility for preparing the report under paragraph (1) to the legally qualified person appointed under regulation 55(5).

• (1C) Where the person chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing under regulation 55 delegates responsibility for preparing the report under paragraph (1B)—

• (a) the legally qualified person must submit the report to the person chairing the misconduct hearing within 3 working days beginning with the first working day after completion of the accelerated misconduct hearing, and

• (b) the person chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing—

• (i) may amend the report prepared by the legally qualified person, and

• (ii) must satisfy themself that they are content with the report prepared by the legally qualified person (whether or not they have amended it under paragraph (i)).

• (1D) Where the person chairing an accelerated misconduct hearing delegates responsibility for preparing the report under paragraph (1B), paragraph (1) is to be read as if for “5 working days” there were substituted “10 working days”.

• (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), ...

• (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 , and

• (c) the Secretary of State, where it was found that the conduct of the officer concerned amounted to gross misconduct but the disciplinary action imposed was not dismissal without notice.

• (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).

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.

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

• (c) a staff member who, in the opinion of the relevant authority, is more senior than the participating officer.

• (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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

• (c) key actions to be undertaken within a specified time period,

• (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.

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.

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.

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.

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, ora 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, orin 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;

• (c) “performance or attendance” may be construed as a reference to 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,

• (c) necessary for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

• (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.

4

• (1) The officer concerned may choose—

• (a) an MDP officer,

• (b) an officer from a relevant force,

• (c) a staff member, or

• (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,

• (c) make representations to the relevant authority concerning any aspect of the proceedings under these Regulations, and

• (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).

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.

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.

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

• (c) made available to each panel member or given to the officer concerned under regulation 33(9).

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.

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

• (c) regulation 45(7)(c) and (8)(a).

• (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.

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);

• (c) a period specified in accordance with regulation 24(6)(c);

• (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).

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

• (c) regulations 30, 33 to 38 and 41 to 48 apply, if the meeting is a third stage meeting,

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);

• (c) any recommendation mentioned in paragraph (1)(b)(iii), (iv) or (v).

• (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.

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);

• (ix) any written improvement notice issued under regulation 45(6);

• (x) any written notice as to improvement in performance or attendance under regulation 47(1)(b), and

• (b) notify the Director General if it extends, under regulation 9(1), any period specified in accordance with regulation 16(6)(c), 24(6)(c) or 45(7)(c) or (8)(a).

13

• (1) Where neither regulation 23 nor regulation 31 applies and the relevant authority assesses under regulation 13(2)(b), 23(4)(b) or 26(2)(a)(iii) of the Conduct Regulations that a matter should be referred to be dealt with under these Regulations—

• (a) the relevant authority must direct the line manager of the officer concerned to take the action specified in regulation 11(2), (3) or (4), as the case may be, and

• (b) paragraphs (2) to (8) of regulation 11 apply, with the following modifications—

• (i) in each of paragraphs (2)(a) and (3)(a), for the words from “the determination” to “(1)(b)(ii)” substitute “the assessment mentioned in regulation 13(1)”;

• (ii) in paragraph (5), for “paragraph (1)” substitute “regulation 13(1)(a)”;

• (iii) in paragraph (6), for “this regulation” substitute “regulation 13”;

• (iv) in paragraph (7), for sub-paragraph (a) substitute—

(a) where relevant, the investigator’s report submitted under regulation 20 of the Conduct Regulations;

• (2) In paragraph (1)(b)(iv), “investigator” means a person—

• (a) appointed under regulation 14 of the Conduct Regulations, or

• (b) appointed or, as the case may be, designated as an investigator under external procedures established for England and Wales.

14

Where the line manager of an MDP officer considers that the performance or attendance of that officer is unsatisfactory, the line manager may require the officer concerned to attend a meeting (in these Regulations referred to as a first stage meeting) to discuss the performance or attendance of the officer.

15

• (1) Where the line manager requires an MDP officer to attend a first stage meeting, the line manager must give a written notice to the officer concerned—

• (a) requiring the officer to attend a first stage meeting with the line manager,

• (b) informing the officer of the procedures for determining the date and time of the meeting under paragraphs (4) to (7),

• (c) summarising the reasons why the officer’s performance or attendance is considered unsatisfactory,

• (d) informing the officer of the possible outcomes of a first stage meeting, a second stage meeting and a third stage meeting,

• (e) informing the officer that a human resources professional or an MDP officer may attend the meeting to advise the line manager on the proceedings,

• (f) informing the officer that, if the officer consents, any other person specified in the notice may attend the meeting,

• (g) informing the officer that the officer may seek advice from a representative of the staff association,

• (h) informing the officer that the officer may be accompanied and represented at the meeting by a police friend, and

• (i) informing the officer that the officer must provide to the line manager in advance of the meeting a copy of any document the officer intends to rely on at the meeting.

• (2) The notice must be accompanied by a copy of any document relied on by the line manager when considering that the performance or attendance of the officer concerned is unsatisfactory.

• (3) Where a reflective review development report has been produced under regulation 70 of the Conduct Regulations in relation to a matter which is similar to or connected with unsatisfactory performance to be discussed at the first stage meeting, the notice must also be accompanied by a copy of that report.

• (4) The line manager must, if reasonably practicable, agree a date and time for the meeting with the officer concerned.

• (5) Where no date and time is agreed, the line manager must specify a date and time for the meeting.

• (6) Where a date and time is specified and—

• (a) the officer concerned or a police friend will not be available at that time, and

• (b) the officer proposes an alternative time which satisfies paragraph (7),

the meeting must be postponed to the time proposed by the officer.

• (7) An alternative time must—

• (a) be reasonable, and

• (b) fall before the end of 5 working days beginning with the first working day after the day specified by the line manager under paragraph (5).

• (8) The line manager must give the officer concerned a written notice of the date and time of the first stage meeting determined in accordance with paragraphs (4) to (7) and of the place of the meeting.

• (9) In advance of the first stage meeting, the officer concerned must provide the line manager with a copy of any document the officer intends to rely on at the meeting.

16

• (1) This regulation applies to the procedure to be followed at the first stage meeting.

• (2) The meeting must be conducted by the line manager.

• (3) A human resources professional or an MDP officer may attend the meeting to advise the line manager on the proceedings.

• (4) Any other person specified in the notice referred to in regulation 15(1) may attend the meeting if the officer concerned consents.

• (5) The line manager must—

• (a) explain to the officer concerned the reasons why the line manager considers that the performance or attendance of the officer is unsatisfactory,

• (b) provide the officer with an opportunity to make representations in response, and

• (c) provide the police friend (if the officer has one) with an opportunity to address the meeting in accordance with regulation 7(3)(a).

• (6) If, after considering such representations (if any) and address (if any), the line manager finds that the performance or attendance of the officer concerned has been unsatisfactory, the line manager must—

• (a) inform the officer in what respect the officer’s performance or attendance is considered unsatisfactory,

• (b) inform the officer of the improvement that is required in performance or attendance,

• (c) inform the officer that, if a sufficient improvement is not made within such reasonable period as the line manager specifies (being a period not exceeding 12 months), the officer may be required to attend a second stage meeting in accordance with regulation 21,

• (d) inform the officer that the officer will receive a written improvement notice, and

• (e) inform the officer that if sufficient improvement is not maintained during any part of the validity period of the notice remaining after the expiry of the period specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (c), the officer may be required to attend a second stage meeting in accordance with regulation 21.

• (7) The line manager may, if the line manager considers it appropriate, recommend that the officer concerned seek assistance in relation to any matter affecting the officer’s health or welfare.

• (8) The line manager may postpone or adjourn the meeting to a specified time, or date and time, if it appears to the line manager necessary or expedient to do so.

17

• (1) The line manager must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the conclusion of the first stage meeting—

• (a) cause to be prepared a written record of the meeting, and

• (b) where the line manager found at the meeting that the performance or attendance of the officer concerned has been unsatisfactory, cause to be prepared a written improvement notice.

• (2) Where the officer concerned has failed to attend a first stage meeting, if the line manager finds that the performance or attendance of the officer has been unsatisfactory, the line manager must as soon as reasonably practicable—

• (a) cause to be prepared a written improvement notice, and

• (b) if the police friend attended the meeting, cause to be prepared a written record of the meeting.

• (3) A written improvement notice must—

• (a) record the matters of which the officer concerned was informed (or would have been informed had the officer attended the meeting) under sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) and (e) of regulation 16(6),

• (b) state the period for which it is valid, and

• (c) be signed and dated by the line manager.

• (4) A written improvement notice is valid for a period of 12 months beginning with the date of the notice.

• (5) The line manager must give a copy of any written record and any written improvement notice to the officer concerned as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been prepared.

• (6) Where the line manager found that the performance or attendance of the officer concerned has been unsatisfactory and has caused to be prepared a written improvement notice, the line manager must, at the same time as giving the documents mentioned in paragraph (5), give a written notice to the officer of—

• (a) the matters set out in regulation 18,

• (b) the name of the second line manager to whom a written notice of appeal must be given under regulation 18(5),

• (c) the officer’s rights under paragraph (7), and

• (d) the effect of paragraphs (8) and (9).

• (7) Subject to paragraph (9), the officer concerned may submit written comments on any written record to the line manager before the end of 7 working days beginning with the first working day after the day on which the officer receives the copy.

• (8) The line manager may, on the application of the officer concerned, extend the period specified in paragraph (7) if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

• (9) The officer concerned may not submit written comments on the written record if the officer has exercised a right to appeal under regulation 18.

• (10) The line manager must ensure that any written record, any written improvement notice and any written comments of the officer concerned on the written record are retained together and filed.

18

• (1) This regulation applies where, at the first stage meeting, the line manager found that the performance or attendance of the officer concerned has been unsatisfactory.

• (2) Where this regulation applies, the officer concerned may appeal against–

• (a) that finding, or

• (b) any of the matters specified in paragraph (3) and recorded in the written improvement notice (in these Regulations referred to as the relevant terms of the written improvement notice),

or both.

• (3) These matters are—

• (a) the respect in which the performance or attendance of the officer concerned is considered unsatisfactory,

• (b) the improvement that is required in performance or attendance,

• (c) the length of the period specified by the line manager in accordance with regulation 16(6)(c).

• (4) The only grounds of appeal under this regulation are—

• (a) that the finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance was unreasonable;

• (b) that any of the relevant terms of the written improvement notice are unreasonable;

• (c) that there is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the first stage meeting which could have materially affected the finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance or any of the relevant terms of the written improvement notice;

• (d) that there was a breach of the procedures set out in these Regulations or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance or any of the relevant terms of the written improvement notice.

• (5) The officer concerned may commence an appeal by giving a written notice of appeal to the second line manager before the end of 7 working days beginning with the first working day after receipt of the documents referred to in regulation 17(5).

• (6) The notice must–

• (a) set out the grounds of appeal, and

• (b) be accompanied by any evidence on which the officer relies.

• (7) The second line manager may, on the application of the officer concerned, extend the period specified in paragraph (5) if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.

• (8) Subject to paragraph (9), the meeting at which the appeal is to be heard (referred to in these Regulations as the first stage appeal meeting) must take place before the end of 7 working days beginning with the first working day after the day on which the second line manager receives the notice under paragraph (5).

• (9) A first stage appeal meeting may take place after the period of 7 working days referred to in paragraph (8) if the second line manager considers it necessary or expedient, in which case the second line manager must give the officer a written notice of the reasons.

19

• (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the notice of appeal referred to in regulation 18(5), the second line manager must give the officer concerned a written notice—

• (a) informing the officer of the procedures for determining the date and time of the meeting under paragraphs (2) to (5),

• (b) informing the officer that a human resources professional or an MDP officer may attend the meeting to advise the second line manager on the proceedings,

• (c) informing the officer that, if the officer consents, any other person specified in the notice may attend the meeting,

• (d) informing the officer that the officer may seek advice from a representative of the staff association, and

• (e) informing the officer that the officer may be accompanied and represented at the meeting by a police friend.

• (2) The second line manager must, if reasonably practicable, agree a date and time for the meeting with the officer concerned.

• (3) Where no date and time is agreed, the second line manager must specify a date and time for the meeting.

• (4) Where a date and time is specified and—

• (a) the officer concerned or the police friend will not be available at that time, and

• (b) the officer proposes an alternative time which satisfies paragraph (5),

the meeting must be postponed to the time proposed by the officer.

• (5) An alternative time must—

• (a) be reasonable, and

• (b) fall before the end of 5 working days beginning with the first working day after the day specified by the second line manager under paragraph (3).

• (6) The second line manager must give the officer concerned a written notice of the date and time of the first stage appeal meeting determined in accordance with paragraphs (2) to (5) and of the place of the meeting.

20

• (1) This regulation applies to the procedure to be followed at a first stage appeal meeting.

• (2) The meeting must be conducted by the second line manager.

• (3) A human resources professional or an MDP officer may attend the meeting to advise the second line manager on the proceedings.

• (4) Any other person specified in the notice referred to in regulation 19(1) may attend the meeting if the officer concerned consents.

• (5) The second line manager must—

• (a) provide the officer concerned with an opportunity to make representations, and

• (b) provide the police friend (if the officer has one) with an opportunity to address the meeting in accordance with regulation 7(3)(a).

• (6) After considering such representations (if any) and address (if any), the second line manager may—

• (a) confirm or reverse the finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance,

• (b) confirm or vary any of the relevant terms of the written improvement notice appealed against.

• (7) Where the second line manager reverses the finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance, the second line manager must also revoke the written improvement notice.

• (8) The second line manager may postpone or adjourn the meeting to a specified time, or date and time, if it appears to the second line manager necessary or expedient to do so.

• (9) As soon as reasonably practicable after the conclusion of the meeting and in any event before the end of 3 working days beginning with the first working day after the conclusion of the meeting, the officer concerned must be given a written notice of the second line manager’s decision and a written summary of the reasons for that decision.

• (10) Where the second line manager has—

• (a) reversed the finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance and revoked the written improvement notice, or

• (b) varied any of the relevant terms of the written improvement notice,

the decision of the second line manager takes effect by way of substitution for the finding, the written improvement notice issued or the relevant terms of the written improvement notice appealed against immediately after the first stage meeting.

21

• (1) Where an MDP officer has received a written improvement notice, as soon as reasonably practicable after the date with which the period specified in accordance with regulation 16(6)(c) ends—

• (a) the line manager must assess the performance or attendance of the officer concerned during that period, in consultation with the second line manager or a human resources professional (or both), and

• (b) the line manager must give the officer a written notice as to whether the line manager considers that there has been a sufficient improvement in performance or attendance during that period.

• (2) If the line manager considers that there has not been a sufficient improvement, the line manager must, at the same time as giving a notice under paragraph (1)(b), also give the officer concerned a written notice that the officer is required to attend a meeting (in these Regulations referred to as a second stage meeting) to consider performance or attendance.

• (3) The officer concerned may be required to attend a second stage meeting under paragraph (4) where—

• (a) the officer has not been required to attend a second stage meeting under paragraph (2), or

• (b) the officer has been required to attend a second stage meeting under paragraph (2) but the second line manager did not make a finding of unsatisfactory performance or attendance at that meeting.

• (4) If the line manager considers that the officer concerned has failed to maintain a sufficient improvement in performance or attendance during any part of the validity period of the written improvement notice remaining after the expiry of the period specified in accordance with regulation 16(6)(c), the line manager must give the officer a written notice of the matters set out in paragraph (5).

• (5) Those matters are—

• (a) that the line manager is of the view mentioned in paragraph (4), and

• (b) that the officer concerned is required to attend a meeting (in these Regulations referred to as a second stage meeting) to consider performance or attendance.

• (6) Any second stage meeting which an MDP officer is required to attend other than such a meeting under regulation 23 must concern unsatisfactory performance or attendance which is similar to or connected with the unsatisfactory performance or attendance referred to in the written improvement notice.

22

• (1) Where the line manager requires the officer concerned to attend a second stage meeting, the second line manager must as soon as reasonably practicable give the officer a written notice—

• (a) referring to the requirement that the officer attend a second stage meeting with the second line manager,

• (b) informing the officer of the procedures for determining the date and time of the meeting under paragraphs (3) to (6),

• (c) summarising the reasons why the officer’s performance or attendance is considered unsatisfactory,

• (d) informing the officer of the possible outcomes of a second stage meeting and a third stage meeting,

• (e) informing the officer that the line manager may attend the meeting,

• (f) informing the officer that a human resources professional or an MDP officer may attend the meeting to advise the second line manager on the proceedings,

• (g) informing the officer that, if the officer consents, any other person specified in the notice may attend the meeting,

• (h) informing the officer that the officer may seek advice from a representative of the staff association,

• (i) informing the officer that the officer may be accompanied and represented at the meeting by a police friend, and

• (j) informing the officer that the officer must provide to the second line manager in advance of the meeting a copy of any document the officer intends to rely on at the meeting.

• (2) The notice must be accompanied by a copy of any document relied on by the line manager when the line manager formed the view referred to in regulation 21(2) or (4), as the case may be.

• (3) The second line manager must, if reasonably practicable, agree a date and time for the meeting with the officer concerned.

• (4) Where no date and time is agreed, the second line manager must specify a date and time for the meeting.

• (5) Where a date and time is specified and—

• (a) the officer concerned or a police friend will not be available at that time, and

• (b) the officer proposes an alternative time which satisfies paragraph (6),

the meeting must be postponed to the time proposed by the officer.

• (6) An alternative time must—

• (a) be reasonable, and