CAMPAIGN
#SimplifyDG6 SCORES ANOTHER WIN
A major revision to the Investigation Management Document marks a turning point in the fight against excessive bureaucracy in case-file building and evidence disclosure to CPS at pre-charge stage
transparency and fairness in the criminal justice system, inadvertently created layers of complexity that left officers struggling to balance investigative work with administrative demands. The campaign’s core goal has been
Police officers across England and Wales have long voiced their frustration over the growing administrative burden that takes them away from frontline duties. Last month, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Disclosure portfolio announced a significant breakthrough – a revision to the Investigation Management Document (IMD) guidance that trims eight pages from the process. This change marks another milestone in the Police Federation of England and Wales’ (PFEW) ongoing #SimplifyDG6 campaign, aimed at reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in case file building. For years, the IMD has been a one-
size-fits-all document, often creating duplication and adding little value to the criminal justice process. The NPCC’s decision to allow its use in a more targeted manner is a welcome step forward. It means officers can now focus on what truly matters: delivering justice rather than drowning in paperwork. The #SimplifyDG6 campaign was
launched by PFEW in response to growing concerns from members about the disproportionate time spent on disclosure obligations under the Attorney General’s Guidelines (DG6). These guidelines, introduced to improve
38 | POLICE | DECEMBER | 2025
clear: streamline processes, eliminate duplication, and restore officers’ ability to focus on policing rather than paperwork. Over the past three years, PFEW has worked tirelessly with stakeholders, including the NPCC and CPS, to highlight the operational impact of these requirements and push for practical solutions. Ben Hudson, Chair of the Police
Federation National Detectives’ Forum, who is spearheading the campaign, explained: “This is a clear sign that the work we’ve been doing through the #SimplifyDG6 campaign is paying off. For three years, we’ve raised concerns about duplication and unnecessary complexity, and now we’re seeing real progress.” The challenges faced by officers have been well documented. HMICFRS reports have repeatedly highlighted how excessive administrative tasks are impacting morale and operational efficiency. Officers often spend hours compiling case files, redacting sensitive information and meeting disclosure obligations, encroaching on the time that could otherwise be spent investigating crime or supporting victims. Mr Hudson added: “Your voice is being
heard. The NPCC and CPS are taking note of the issues we’ve consistently raised. This change will add real value to the criminal justice system and help restore some balance for our members.” The reduction of eight pages may sound modest, but in practice, it represents a significant cut in duplication
and wasted effort. Each page removed means fewer repetitive entries, fewer hours lost and less stress for officers already stretched thin. It also signals that the NPCC and CPS are listening, a crucial development for a workforce that has often felt unheard. The Federation has urged forces to implement these changes swiftly, ideally within the suggested three-month window. Mr Hudson emphasised the importance of proactive engagement: “I would encourage members to contact their force’s Criminal Justice leads to ensure effective and early implementation. The sooner these changes take effect, the sooner officers can reclaim time for policing rather than paperwork.”
While this revision is a positive step,
the journey to fully streamline disclosure obligations is far from over. The #SimplifyDG6 campaign will continue to push for further reforms, ensuring that officers are not bogged down by unnecessary bureaucracy. As Mr Hudson noted: “This is about more than paperwork, it’s about enabling officers to do the job they signed up for: keeping communities safe.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
