CHAIR ASKS
misconduct hearings. Instead, the panel will be chaired by the chief officer (or a senior officer to whom the role has been delegated) and two independent panel members, one of whom “will be required to have specific, relevant expertise”. As yet, there has been no indication as to what criteria will be necessary to qualify as having “specific, relevant expertise”. The “legal input” at a hearing will be provided by a legally qualified advisor (LQA) who will not have a decision- making role. While the panel “must have regard” to the LQA’s advice, it does not appear it is proposed that the panel must accept and follow that advice. The NALQC regards the proposals as a retrograde step and does not consider they provide for a process that is open, transparent and fair to all involved.
SH: Much has been made of the ‘inability’ to sack police officers and statistics show a decrease in dismissals in the LQC model, leading to conclusions that chief officers would make more decisions to dismiss. Does this demonstrate, in fact, that the reverse is true, and prior processes have led to dismissals that were not required even without referral to a Police Appeal Tribunal (PAT)? JB: The statistics relied upon as purporting to show dismissals had decreased after the introduction of LQCs were at best questionable, as was indicated in Baroness Casey’s report. More significantly, the Home Office’s own review “found no evidence that dismissal levels are decreasing at misconduct hearings since the year ending 31 March 2016” – but, by the time the results of the review were published, the then Home Secretary had already announced the removal of LQCs from the process.
regarding removing them as the chair of the panel. JB: I can only repeat the final sentence of my answer to the first question.
SH: Have they been given an opportunity by the Government to give their views on the proposed changes? JB: The NALQC has taken part in and expressed its views at the stakeholder workshops set up by the Home Office following the announcement of the proposed changes. It was at the workshop on tranche 1 of the proposals that the NALQC stated having an LQP on the panel was unworkable as it gave rise to a serious risk that the LQP’s professional integrity would be compromised if the chair failed to accept the LQP’s legal advice. In such a situation, the LQP would be professionally obliged to stand down from the panel. However, it was apparent from the
outset of the workshops, the decision to remove LQCs was “set in the stone” and
JB: It is difficult to see how the current proposals will in themselves address the issue of delays. The Home Office’s original proposal that the hearing date would be set by the chief officer/their delegate as soon as appointed as chair has already been dropped as unworkable in practice. Ultimately, the only effective way of removing delays is to increase resources for the entire process from investigation through to the hearing. The NALQC understands that some forces are very concerned about the impact upon them of having to ensure senior officers are available to chair misconduct hearings. As yet, there has been no indication the Home Office is willing to provide any additional resources to address the issue.
“The Home Office’s original proposal that the hearing date would be set by the chief officer/their delegate as soon as appointed as chair has already been dropped as unworkable in practice. ”
the intention was this should take place on 1 April 2024. This, in turn, has resulted in the current, unsatisfactory proposals.
The introduction of LQCs also resulted in a very significant drop in successful appeals to the PAT – your members may well consider this indicates the pre- LQC process resulted in officers being dismissed at hearings when such an outcome was inappropriate.
SH: Can we establish what the views of the LQCs are regarding the new proposed regulatory changes and more importantly, what they are likely to do if these changes come in to effect
SH: It would also be good to know if they will be challenging the suggested changes and if so, how will they be doing this. JB: The NALQC will continue to state its view that the Home Office’s proposals are a retrograde step, especially when the draft regulations are formally put out for consultation. It will also continue to express its views in the media and to liaise with those organisations, such as the Police Federation, that also regard the proposals as a retrograde step. Unfortunately, we are a small organisation with limited resources and, therefore, to have any effect, we have to work with others.
SH: There have been considerable delays in hearings with a backlog of officers and the public patiently waiting. With the new proposals to be implemented, what effect do you think these changes will have on these delays?
SH: Is a lack of LQC/AA availability likely to further extend the waiting time for misconduct hearings? It has been mentioned the reason for the delays with hearings has been due to the lack of availability of LQCs. Why do you think there are these delays? JB: Delays in hearings taking place can be due to a number of reasons and not just lack of LQC availability. Complex hearings, potentially involving a number of witnesses, will
inevitably take longer to reach a hearing. Delay can be caused by the appropriate authority (AA) failing to give proper disclosure. If an officer, or indeed the AA, has been advised by a particular lawyer over a period of time, inevitably they will want that lawyer to represent them at the hearing if at all possible. A number of police and crime
commissioners (PCCs) have been appointing new LQCs, notwithstanding the proposed changes to the process. It would appear the PCCs’ hope is that newly appointed and current LQCs will take on the role of LQAs under the “new” system. It remains to be seen if that will actually happen. However, it is likely that a number of existing LQCs will be unwilling to take on the role of LQA – this is not a matter of “wounded pride”, but a matter of being unwilling to be part of a process that is no longer open, transparent and fair. A loss of a such substantial body of legal experience in the police misconduct field can only lead to further delays.
21 | POLICE | FEBRUARY | 2024
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
