The Ministry of Defence Police (Conduct etc.) Regulations 2015

Procedure at misconduct proceedings

37.—(1) Subject to these Regulations, the person conducting or chairing the misconduct proceedings may determine the procedure at those proceedings.

(2) The misconduct proceedings may not commence unless the officer concerned has been notified of the effect of regulation 10 (police friend and legal representation).

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), the person conducting or chairing the misconduct proceedings may from time to time adjourn the proceedings if it appears to be necessary or expedient to do so.

(4) The misconduct proceedings may not, except in exceptional circumstances, be adjourned solely to allow the complainant or any witness or interested person to attend.

(5) The person representing the officer concerned may—

(a) address the proceedings in order to do any or all of the following—

(i) put the case of the officer concerned;

(ii) sum up that case;

(iii) respond on behalf of the officer concerned to any view expressed at the proceedings;

(iv) make representations concerning any aspect of the proceedings; and

(v) subject to paragraph (8), ask questions of any witnesses; and

(b) confer with the officer concerned.

(6) Where the person representing the officer concerned is a relevant lawyer, the police friend of the officer concerned may also confer with the officer concerned.

(7) The police friend or relevant lawyer of the officer concerned may not answer any questions asked of the officer concerned.

(8) Whether any question should or should not be put to a witness shall be determined by the person conducting or chairing the misconduct proceedings.

(9) The person conducting or chairing the misconduct proceedings may allow any document to be considered at those proceedings notwithstanding that a copy of it has not been supplied—

(a) by the officer concerned to the relevant authority in accordance with regulation 26(3); or

(b) to the officer concerned in accordance with regulation 25(1).

(10) This paragraph applies where evidence is given at the misconduct proceedings that the officer concerned—

(a) was given written notice to attend an interview with an investigator (whether under regulation 21(5) or any equivalent notice given under external procedures) but failed to attend that interview;

(b) on being questioned by an investigator at any time after the officer was given written notice of investigation (whether under regulation 19(1) or any equivalent notice given under external procedures) failed to mention any fact relied on at the misconduct proceedings, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time, the officer concerned could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned; or

(c) in submitting any information or by not submitting any information at all under—

(i) regulation 20(1) (representations to the investigator),

(ii) regulation 26(3) or (4) (procedure on receipt of notice),

(iii) where a direction has been made under regulation 47 (remission of case), regulation 49 (procedure on receipt of notice),

(iv) any equivalent opportunities to submit information under external procedures,

failed to mention any fact relied on at the misconduct proceedings, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time, the officer concerned could reasonably have been expected to mention when providing such information.

(11) Where paragraph (10) applies, the person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.

(12) The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings must review the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the officer concerned amounts—

(a) in the case of a misconduct meeting, to misconduct or not; or

(b) in the case of a misconduct hearing, to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.

(13) The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings may not find that the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct unless—

(a) they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is the case; or

(b) the officer concerned admits it is the case.

(14) The decision of the panel at a misconduct hearing may be based on a majority (with the chair having the casting vote if necessary).