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

Outcome of accelerated misconduct hearing

62.—(1) Where the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing finds that the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to gross misconduct, they must impose disciplinary action, which, subject to the provisions of this regulation, may be—

(a) a final written warning,

(b) reduction in rank, or

(c) dismissal without notice.

(2) The disciplinary action has effect from the date on which it is notified to the officer concerned.

(3) Where, on the date of the severity assessment under regulation 13(1) or under external procedures, the officer concerned had a final written warning in force, a final written warning must not be given.

(4) Where a final written warning is given, that warning remains in force for—

(a) a period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it was notified to the officer concerned, or

(b) such longer period as the person or panel considering the question of disciplinary action may determine, up to a maximum of 5 years beginning with the day on which it was notified to the officer.

(5) The reference to a period in paragraph (4)(a) and (b) does not include any time when the officer concerned is taking extended special unpaid leave.

(6) Reduction in rank may only be imposed under this regulation where the person or panel imposing the disciplinary action consider this is an appropriate sanction, taking into account the views of the relevant authority, including in relation to the likely operational impact.

(7) Where, on the date of the severity assessment under regulation 13(1) or under external procedures, the officer concerned is subject to a reduction in rank under these Regulations or the Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, a reduction in rank must not be imposed.

(8) Where the person conducting or chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing finds that the conduct of the officer concerned does not amount to gross misconduct, they may—

(a) dismiss the case, or

(b) return the case to the relevant authority to deal with in accordance with Part 4.

(9) Where the case is returned to the relevant authority under paragraph (8)(b), the relevant authority must proceed in accordance with Part 4, subject to regulation 23(1)) being read as if the words “Subject to regulation 47, on receipt of the investigator’s report under regulation 20(1) or an equivalent report made under external procedures,” were omitted.

(10) Where the question of disciplinary action is being considered, the person or panel considering it—

(a) must have regard to the record of police service of the officer concerned as shown on the officer’s personal record,

(b) may consider such documentary evidence as would, in their opinion, assist them in determining the question,

(c) must give—

(i) the officer,

(ii) if the officer is legally represented, the officer’s relevant lawyer or, where the officer is not legally represented, the officer’s police friend,

(iii) the relevant authority or the person appointed to represent such authority in accordance with regulation 7(5),

(iv) the Director General or the Director General’s relevant lawyer, where the Director General presented the case on behalf of the relevant authority, and

(v) the Ombudsman or the Ombudsman’s relevant lawyer, where the Ombudsman presented the case on behalf of the relevant authority,

an opportunity to make oral or written representations before any such question is determined, including on the appropriate level of disciplinary action, and

(d) where representations are received in relation to mitigating circumstances—

(i) must consider whether those circumstances have been mentioned at an earlier stage in the proceedings and, if they have not been so mentioned, whether the officer could reasonably have been expected to so mention them, and

(ii) in the light of their conclusions under paragraph (i), may determine that it is appropriate to place less weight on those circumstances.