Getting out of jail interest-free

Written by: Natalie Cargill
Published: 6 February 2018

When a person convicted in the Crown Court has an additional prison term enforced by the Magistrates for having only part paid off a confiscation order, he is entitled to a reduction in that term proportionate to the money that has been paid. R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC 2; [2018] 1 WLR 629 confirmed that the starting point for calculating this reduction is the original sum ordered by the Crown Court, and not the larger sum including interest that had accrued by the date of the Magistrates’ enforcement.

Practical consequences of misconduct panel liability for discrimination

Written by: Jonathan Davies, Elliot Gold
Published: 23 January 2018

What are the practical consequences of the removal of judicial immunity for police misconduct panels in discrimination cases? This article considers the acts that give rise to a cause of action, the common scenarios in which these could arise and the practical steps to take to address or avoid such issues.

In P v Comr of Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 65, the Supreme Court held that the Chief Constable was vicariously liable for decisions of (old style) police misconduct hearing panels where they make decisions which amount to discrimination contrary to Equality Act 2010, where this transposes the causes of action stated in the Framework Directive.

As we have said previously, the effect of the decision in P is limited to those causes of action which derive from EU law. It can have no application to, for example, whistleblowing claims are purely a matter of English law, not derived from EU directives. Furthermore, it may be that a careful reading of the appropriate Directive may provide a ‘get out’ clause if the right being asserted in the employment tribunal does not derive from EU law.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Written by: UK Police Law Blog
Published: 8 January 2018

The IOPC today replaces the Independent Police Complaints Commission Commission. The Home Office has stated that the IOPC will have the powers to:

initiate its own investigations without relying on a force to record and refer a particular case for investigation;

reopen cases it has closed where there are compelling reasons, such as new evidence;

increase its independence from the police by abolishing ‘managed’ and ‘supervised’ investigations;

investigate all disciplinary investigations against chief officers; and

present cases against officers in the police disciplinary process when the force disagrees with the IOPC’s findings.

The announcement is here. The website of the IOPC is https://policeconduct.gov.uk.

Update on the amended Police Conduct Regulations – resigned to a hearing?

Written by: Stephen Morley
Published: 22 December 2017

The Police (Conduct, Complaints and Misconduct and Appeal Tribunal) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 came into force on 15^th December 2017 and have made a number of important changes to police misconduct procedures. The four central changes to be aware of are:

a. The removal of the need for officers under investigation to obtain the consent of the Appropriate Authority before resigning or retiring;

b. The introduction of a new procedure to proceed with misconduct investigations and hearings notwithstanding that the officer concerned has left the police service;

c. A new power to misconduct hearing panel Chairs to provide information relevant to the barred list; and

d. An amendment to the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012, allowing former officers to appeal against the findings of a misconduct panel.

Selection of Legally Qualified Chairs in misconduct hearings

Written by: Elliot Gold
Published: 17 December 2017

A short post on a change in the Home Office Guidance. It now states that the selection of LQCs should be on a “fair and transparent basis”. Good practice will be selection through a “rota system”. A rota system may not necessarily work with LQCs’ other professional commitments. Often, appropriate authorities will inform all LQCs of a hearing and select them on a ‘first-come, first-served’ basis. That said, if more than one LQC responds, there is no reason why a rota system cannot then apply. Note, also, that the Guidance suggests that the manner of selection should be made clear to all parties to the hearing, which really means the respondent officer(s).

The relevant part of the HO Guidance is as follows: [emphasis added]

2.215. The appropriate authority is responsible for appointing all three panel members. The LQC must be chosen from a list of candidates which is selected and maintained by the local policing body through the process described in Annex F. The appropriate authority should select the LQC at the earliest opportunity following the decision to refer to misconduct proceedings. In accordance with procedural fairness and principles of natural justice, the selection of the LQC should be on a fair and transparent basis. Good practice will be selection through a rota system by which the next available LQC is selected for the next hearing. Bad practice will be to select on the basis of which LQC will be more likely to give the verdict required. The manner of selection should be made clear to all parties to the hearing.