POLICE HISTORY FAIR CHAIRS LOOKBACK:


As the Government hints at giving more powers to chief officers at misconduct hearings, PFEW Conduct and Performance Lead Phil Jones discusses the history of Legally Qualified Chairs


The conduct of officers, attitudes and processes within the service have rightly been looked at through a magnifying glass in recent months, following shocking cases which have rocked officers and their communities. In January 2023, the Home Office launched a review into the dismissal process, scrutinising the consistency of decision-making at misconduct hearings and disproportionality in dismissals, alongside reviewing the misconduct panels model and the impact of legally qualified chairs (LQCs). If you’re experiencing déjà vu reading this, your hunch is correct. A similar consultation was carried out back in 2015. This led to the system being overhauled to bring greater transparency, justice and independence into the police disciplinary system.


Members of the public were


allowed to sit in on disciplinary hearings, and LQCs were introduced. The Federation was satisfied with these changes, as it meant the beginning of a fairer process for our members. The 2015 report perfectly sums why


us that they had already decided the fate of an officer, positive or negative, before hearing evidence. How could anyone have faith in such an


unfair system?


Because of recent high-profile cases, chiefs have been calling for more powers at misconduct hearings. The role of LQCs is being examined by the Home Office in its latest review. The disciplinary system is not perfect,


and we welcome improvements, providing they are truly beneficial for officers and complainants. We already know disciplinary investigations take too long. The Baroness Casey Review highlighted that on average, the Met takes 400 days to finalise misconduct cases, but this is a nationwide problem. One in eight cases still takes more


expeditiously”, so we are pleased to see the Government acknowledging this issue. We are keen to continue working with parliamentarians for further legislative change. However, she told the committee


“LQCs play a vital role in maintaining an impartial, fair and transparent system for the police and public”


LQCs were introduced: “The majority of respondents stated that the introduction of legally qualified chairs would result in sound and legally reasoned judgments, reduced appeals, fair and consistent decisions, greater transparency and increased public confidence.” Forces were essentially marking their


own homework before LQCs came in. They are now assisted by an independent member and a senior police officer, making up an independent panel. Chief officers used to preside over misconduct hearings, but it was clear to


58 | POLICE | JUNE 2023


than 12 months to conclude, according to the Home Office. Via our Time Limits campaign, we are


fighting for police disciplinary investigations to be concluded within 12 months from when an allegation is made. We propose legislation to give legally


qualified persons power to impose deadlines on investigations that have taken a year. This is because the impact on officers and complainants is massively damaging as they try to continue their lives under such stress. The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee she thinks “investigations need to happen more


the Government wants to make it easier for chief officers to dismiss police officers where they identify evidence of misconduct – an ominous indication of what we could expect from the consultation findings. Chief officers can already


make “fast-track” dismissals. Additionally, they can chair accelerated hearings and dismiss officers without delay when the evidence is incontrovertible and


amounts to gross misconduct. We will await the findings of the Home Office consultation, which we fed into, championing the continued use of LQCs. They play a vital role in maintaining an impartial, fair and transparent system for the police and public. The impartiality of independent panels, who hear, watch and read all evidence before making a decision – free of political and social pressures – is vital to maintaining a transparent, fair system. Moving away from this would be a huge


retrograde step during a pivotal moment where we want to improve the service and restore public confidence.


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60