search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
NEWS


set to go ahead completely go against what we warned in our submission to the Home Office. “Chief constables presiding once again over misconduct hearings is a hugely retrograde step during a pivotal moment where we are looking to improve the service and restore public confidence. “If the process is failing to operate effectively, as it is being claimed, then more investment should have been made to reform and strengthen it. Instead of ensuring chief officers identify a sufficient number of LQCs and senior officers are able to book time in their dairies to fulfil conduct disciplinary hearing obligations, it has decided to replace LQCs. “Cultural reform and


service-wide change cannot be undertaken by handing out sweeping, uncontrolled powers to police chiefs to dismiss


confidence which is paramount. “Disciplinary investigations take


too long to conclude. In the Baroness Casey Review it was highlighted that on average, the Met takes 400 days to finalise misconduct cases - but this is a nationwide problem. “According to the Home Office’s latest


statistics, one in eight cases still take more than 12 months to conclude. “Via our long-running Time Limits campaign, we are fighting for police disciplinary investigations to be concluded within 12 months from the moment an


remove undesirable individuals from the police service. “However, this does not mean existing


“Police officers must have confidence that they have the right to fair and transparent disciplinary processes to ensure individual bias does not govern or influence decisions which have serious consequences on an individual’s career and wellbeing”


officers without following due legal process. It will only take the UK’s policing back to the dark days when officers were dismissed by an individual and a tribunal later found they had acted unlawfully. Reforms require investment and time management.”


PFEW Deputy National Chair Tiff Lynch said: “Ministers want chief constables to act fast, and chief constables want to act more swiftly. We would urge them to back our Time Limits campaign to make a real difference to the dismissals process, to make it fairer and more robust for both police officers and complainants, paving the way for the rebuilding of public


allegation is made. “The Home Office has also proposed


to change the law to allow vetting-based dismissal of officers and authorising chief constables to dismiss officers without going through processes and mechanisms of dismissals. It is the PFEW’s stand that this clearly circumvents Police Conduct Regulations 2020 and opens a veiled backdoor route to afford more sweeping powers to chief constables to dismiss rank and file officers potentially at whim.” PFEW National Board Member and Conduct and Performance co-lead, Melanie Warnes, said: “We support stringent vetting of officers to identify and


Police Conduct Regulations, which have been established following a democratic process, should be outrightly undermined and the authority of independent Legally Qualified Chairs bypassed.” Phil Jones, PFEW National Board Member and Conduct and Performance co-lead, added: “Police officers must have confidence that they have the right to fair and transparent disciplinary processes to ensure individual bias does not govern or influence decisions which have serious consequences on an individual’s career and wellbeing. “We have requested and await the College of Policing to share the Equality Impact Assessment to ensure no group of officers are unjustifiably disadvantaged


by the revised code.”


Supporting their concerns, Tiff added: “Let’s not forget that the current state of policing is down to chief constables for failing to implement stringent vetting practices, maintain high standards and provide training to those who investigate corrupt officers.” “If any of these potential changes


deter any police officer or police staff member from challenging or reporting the inappropriate or illegal actions of senior leaders or chief constables for fear of failing a future vetting check, public safety and confidence of serving police officers will be further eroded.”


05 | POLICE | OCTOBER | 2023


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