Recommendation 26

HM Government · verbatim extract Deferred

34. Home Office statutory guidance already specifies that criminal proceedings should run prior to—or in parallel with—action for misconduct, unless to do so would prejudice any criminal proceedings. 35. Cases are often extremely complex; as such, setting time-limited targets could potentially create perverse incentives for investigators to rush to meet deadlines at the expense of thoroughness and quality of an investigation. Rushed investigations could have a serious impact on public confidence, particularly where meeting targets means that the evidence might not be considered in full when informing on a final decision. 36. There is some concern that setting time-limits adds an additional layer of bureaucracy into a system that we are trying to streamline – which could actually be detrimental to timescales in the long term. 37. In 2020, the Government introduced legislation to improve the overall timeliness of misconduct investigations. This included a 12-month trigger, requiring the investigating body—whether that’s the IOPC or a police force—to provide written explanation for any delays, the planned steps to bring the investigation to a conclusion and the estimated conclusion date. 38. In August 2023, following the conclusion of the Home Office review into police officer dismissals, the Government announced a series of reforms to strengthen policing standards. This includes measures which we consider are likely to improve timeliness and efficiency in the system. This includes: a) responsibility for chairing hearings to return to senior officers; b) a presumption of fast-track hearings for former officers and special constables; c) a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct; d) streamlining the performance system; e) specified offence types, conviction of which automatically amounts to gross misconduct; and f) a clarified route to remove officers who fail to maintain vetting.