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

Persons conducting misconduct proceedings U.K.

27.—(1) Where the officer concerned is an officer other than a senior officer—

(a) where the case is referred to a misconduct meeting, that meeting must be conducted by a person—

(i) appointed by the relevant authority,

F1 (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(iii) [F2 who] is appointed in accordance with paragraph (3);

(b) where the case is referred to a misconduct hearing, that hearing must be conducted by a panel of three persons [F3 constituted] in accordance with paragraph (4).

(2) Where the officer concerned is a senior officer and the case is referred to misconduct proceedings, those misconduct proceedings must be conducted by a panel of three persons [F4 constituted] in accordance with paragraph (5) [F5 or (5A)].

(3) The person appointed by the relevant authority in accordance with this paragraph must be—

(a) an MDP officer of at least one rank higher than the officer concerned, or

(b) unless the case substantially involves operational police matters, a staff member who, in the opinion of the relevant authority, is more senior than the officer concerned.

[F6 (4) The panel must comprise—

(a) a chair, who must be the chief constable (but see regulation 2(4A)),

(b) a lay person, appointed by the Secretary of State, who—

(i) has the qualifications or experience relevant for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings, and

(ii) is selected on a fair and transparent basis from the list of candidates who have such qualifications or experience maintained by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this sub-paragraph,

(c) a lay person, appointed by the Secretary of State, who need not have such qualifications or experience, selected on a fair and transparent basis from the list of candidates maintained by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this sub-paragraph.]

[F7 (5) Subject to paragraph (5A), where the officer concerned is a senior officer the panel must comprise—

(a) a chair, appointed by the relevant authority, who must be a member of a relevant force who is of a more senior rank than the officer concerned;

(b) a person appointed in accordance with paragraph (4)(b);

(c) a person appointed in accordance with paragraph (4)(c).]

[F8 (5A) Where the officer concerned is the chief constable, for paragraph (5)(a) substitute—

“(a) a chair, appointed by the Secretary of State, who must be the Chief Inspector of Constabulary or an inspector of constabulary nominated by the Chief Inspector.”.

(5B) A person must be appointed by the Secretary of State as an adviser to the chair and panel conducting a misconduct hearing under paragraph (4), (5) or (5A), selected on a fair and transparent basis from a list of legally qualified persons maintained by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this paragraph.

(5C) The legally qualified person appointed under paragraph (5B) must provide advice to the chair or panel conducting a misconduct hearing, upon request by the chair, in respect of any legal or procedural issues relating to the misconduct proceedings.

(5D) The chair or panel conducting a misconduct hearing must have regard to any advice given by the legally qualified person in accordance with paragraph (5C).

(5E) Where the officer concerned is not a senior officer, paragraph (5F) 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.

(5F) 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 (5E)(a)(i) or (ii) was made, or

(b) the direction referred to in paragraph (5E)(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.

(5G) Where representations have been made under paragraph (5F) 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 misconduct hearing to an MDP officer, a former officer, a staff member, or to a member of a relevant force.]

[F9 (6) In this regulation—

“lay person” has the same meaning as in paragraph 10(aa) of Schedule 6 to the Police Act 1996;

“legally qualified person” means a person who satisfies the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 5-year basis.]

(7) For the purposes of section 4(4) of the 1987 Act (power to prescribe “the panel” for the purposes of conducting the proceedings), the panel of persons or the person specified by this regulation to conduct misconduct proceedings is prescribed as “the panel”.

Textual Amendments

F1 Sch. 1 reg. 27(1)(a)(ii) omitted (31.5.2024) by virtue of The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(a)(i) (with reg. 4)

F2 Word in Sch. 1 reg. 27(1)(a)(iii) inserted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(a)(ii) (with reg. 4)

F3 Word in Sch. 1 reg. 27(1)(b) substituted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(b) (with reg. 4)

F4 Word in Sch. 1 reg. 27(2) substituted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(b) (with reg. 4)

F5 Words in Sch. 1 reg. 27(2) inserted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(c) (with reg. 4)

F6 Sch. 1 reg. 27(4) substituted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(d) (with reg. 4)

F7 Sch. 1 reg. 27(5) substituted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(e) (with reg. 4)

F8 Sch. 1 reg. 27(5A)-(5G) inserted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(f) (with reg. 4)

F9 Sch. 1 reg. 27(6) substituted (31.5.2024) by The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct, Performance and Appeals Tribunals) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (S.I. 2024/603), regs. 1(1), 2(7)(g) (with reg. 4)

Commencement Information

I1 Sch. 1 reg. 27 in force at 2.11.2020, see reg. 1