Guidance

User guide to police misconduct statistics

Updated 30 January 2024

Applies to England and Wales

1. Introduction

This document is designed to be a useful reference guide with explanatory notes on the issues and classifications that are key to the production and presentation of the Home Office’s annual statistical release of Police misconduct, England and Wales.

Previously the Home Office published data on police misconduct cases and criminal investigations involving officers and staff in the Police workforce, England and Wales publication series. Following the introduction of new legislation in February 2020 to strengthen the police discipline system, the Home Office expanded its data collection to cover police complaints, from members of the public, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters, raised internally. In addition, the Home Office expanded the data collection from aggregate-level data to case-level data and established a standalone statistical series for the data.

The first publication in the ‘Police misconduct’ series, covering police misconduct cases finalised in the financial year ending 31 March 2021, was published in June 2022. The second publication, covering misconduct cases finalised in the financial year ending 31 March 2022, was published in January 2023. The third publication, covering cases finalised in the financial year ending 31 March 2023, was published in January 2024.

Going forwards, it is the intention of the Home Office to publish these statistics on an annual basis each Autumn, with the aim of doing so in the Autumn of 2024. As with other Home Office statistics, and in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics, the dates of future editions of these statistics will be pre-announced and can be found on the statistics release calendar.

The data is ‘Official Statistics in Development’^{[footnote 1]} to acknowledge that it is undergoing development and should be interpreted with caution. These statistics were formerly known as experimental statistics however the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) introduced new terminology in September 2023. More information can be found in the OSR’s guidance on producing official statistics in development and chapter 3 of this user guide on data quality.

For more information on how these statistics compare to other published sources see chapter 6.

2. Scope of the statistics

The ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical release contains information on police complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters, that were finalised by the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales, in the financial year (between 1 April and 31 March) and primarily focuses on those which were referred to misconduct proceedings.

For all cases referred to misconduct proceedings data is presented on:

• breach type
• the type of proceeding
• the outcome at such proceedings including the level of misconduct found proven
• disciplinary actions imposed
• timeliness measures for how long it took to finalise such cases

Information is also provided on the individuals involved in such proceedings by protected characteristics.

Following the outcome at misconduct proceedings officers may appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT). Information is presented on the number of appeals made by police officers to the PAT, including whether the appeal was upheld and whether the outcome initially imposed was amended.

Not all allegations will be handled at misconduct proceedings; in some allegations there may not have been a case to answer, or the allegation was resolved via other means. Information is provided on the total number of police complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters finalised including those not referred to misconduct proceedings.

Information is also presented on the number of police complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters, that were finalised in the financial year, which involved criminal proceedings.

These statistics include cases raised under the 2020 regulations only, for cases which came to the force’s attention on or after 1 February 2020.

Data is provided for police officers (which includes special constables) and police staff (which includes civilian staff, Police Community Support Officers and designated officers), although it should be noted there are some differences in the misconduct system between these worker types. Further detail can be found in chapter 5 about the police misconduct system.

Definitions and key terms used in this publication series can be found in the glossary (chapter 7).

2.1 Statistics for the year ending 31 March 2021

Data in the ‘year ending March 2021’ release covered only those complaints and conduct matters, that were deemed serious enough to require investigation. In addition, the data in the report was based on cases finalised in the financial year, irrespective of when the case was received. This means cases may have been handled under either the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (when the matter came to the force’s attention on or prior to 31 January 2020), or under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (when the matter came to the force’s attention on or after 1 February 2020). The data presented included cases finalised under both pieces of legislations.

It included:

• the number of cases that were investigated
• the number of allegations involved in those cases
• whether the case was referred to misconduct proceedings
• the outcomes of such proceedings

The release also included information on the demographics of police officers and staff who have had a complaint, conduct matter or recordable conduct matter raised against them.

2.2 Statistics for the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards

In order to simplify these statistics, in the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards, the Home Office has collected and published data on cases raised under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 only. This decision was made to reflect that the changes to the regulations meant that processes on how to handle cases from 1 February 2020 onwards differed to cases handled under the old regulations.

Amendments to the police complaints and discipline system from 1 February 2020 onwards included changing the definition of what constitutes misconduct and widening the definition of a complaint. It also included amendments to available disciplinary outcomes, removing the use of management action or management advice, whilst introducing the new reflective practice review process for matters which do not amount to misconduct. As such, it is not appropriate to compare complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters handled under the different legislations.

Users should bear in mind that the change in scope of these statistics, to cover only cases handled under the 2020 regulations, means the totals reported are therefore likely an undercount of all complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters. The scale of cases currently ongoing (which means not finalised) under the old regulations is unknown and not captured in these statistics. We anticipate that the number of remaining cases raised under the old regulations should reduce each year as they are finalised.

Users should be mindful these statistics do not present a complete picture of cases finalised for the years ending 31 March 2022 onwards, as they do not include cases which came to the forces’ attention prior to February 2020.

Furthermore, as these statistics cover cases handled under the 2020 regulations only, they are not comparable to the data collected and published as part of the Home Office review into the process of police officer dismissals, which covers cases handled under the 2012 and 2020 regulations.

In addition, for the years ending 31 March 2022 onwards, these statistics include information on all cases finalised by police forces, not just those deemed serious enough to investigate, as was the case in the first edition of this statistical series (covering the year ending 31 March 2021). This enables users of the data to gain a fuller picture of the number of complaints and conduct matters finalised.

For the reasons mentioned above, direct comparisons should not be made between publications.

Furthermore, in the year ending 31 March 2023, the Home Office amended the counting methodology used in this statistical series. Previously, releases in this statistical series counted the outcome and misconduct level finding of allegations referred to misconduct proceedings. However, in the year 31 March 2023, the counting methodology has been amended to count the outcomes against individuals referred to misconduct proceedings. An individual may be subject to multiple misconduct proceedings on different dates; where this is the case, the individual is counted per proceeding.

One individual may have multiple allegations against them. If that individual, with multiple allegations against them, is referred to a misconduct proceeding, the proceeding will hear evidence related to all allegations. The outcome of the proceeding, such as a dismissal, and the misconduct finding level, such as gross misconduct, are recorded against all allegations related to the individual. However, for the purpose of these statistics, it is the overall outcome against the individual (for example, proven of gross misconduct and subsequently dismissed) that is counted (which means this would be counted once).

Previously these statistics counted the outcome and misconduct level finding recorded against each allegation for an individual, as separate occurrences. In the year 31 March 2023, the counting methodology has been amended to count on an individual basis. In the example above, this would be counted as one individual found proven of gross misconduct and dismissed.

In instances where one individual has multiple allegations against them, each allegation may receive a different outcome and misconduct finding level. Where this is the case, in a small number of cases, the most severe outcome and misconduct finding level against the individual has been used in these statistics. For example, if an individual attends a misconduct proceeding relating to 3 allegations, 2 of which result in no further action and a misconduct finding level of no misconduct, and 1 of which is found proven for misconduct and results in a first written warning this will be counted as 1 individual receiving a written warning and found proven of misconduct.

In addition, for the year ending 31 March 2023 the Home Office used the ‘staff reference’ field on Centurion to count individuals, rather than the ‘subject reference’ field that was used in previous publications. The ‘subject reference’ field that was used in previous publications generated a new reference for each case an individual was involved in. Whereas, in the ‘staff reference’ field each individual receives a specific staff reference that will remain the same for that individual regardless of the number of cases they are involved in, or the number of allegations raised against them. The data is anonymised, and Home Office Statisticians are not able to identify specific individuals from the data. For more information on the counting of individuals see section 3.2 of the user guide.

Due to amendments in the counting methodology, it not possible to directly compare data between publication as it is counted on a different basis.

2.3 Uses of the data

The statistics produced in the ‘Police Misconduct’ series are of interest to a range of users, allowing them to monitor trends in the police conduct and discipline system in England and Wales. Specific uses of the data are listed below.

Informing the general public: these statistics may attract the attention of both national and local media, which in turn informs the public about trends in the police discipline system. Information on these statistics is also routinely requested in Freedom of Information requests.

Policing stakeholders: these statistics are used by police forces in England and Wales to monitor trends in the police conduct and discipline system.

Government policy making and monitoring: these statistics are used by policy officials in Government to monitor the state of the police conduct and discipline system, including assessing the impact of changes to the regulatory system.

Inspections and auditing: these statistics are used by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) when gathering evidence to drive inspection activity. HMICFRS hold the police service to account in their handling of complaints and conduct matters, helping to drive improvements in policing practice and build trust and confidence in those who have reason to make a complaint.

3. Data quality

3.1 Data source

The data referred to in these statistics is obtained from Centurion, an operational tool for the recording and processing of professional standards data within police forces, used by each of the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales.

Data in this publication series is a reflection of cases as recorded on the Centurion system, and users should bear in mind the limitations highlighted throughout this chapter when interpreting the data.

Data only captures cases recorded under the new regulations

Users should bear in mind that the change in scope of these statistics in the year ending 31 March 2022, to cover only cases handled under the 2020 regulations, means the totals reported are therefore likely an undercount. The scale of cases currently ongoing (which means not finalised) under the old regulations is unknown and not captured in these statistics. We anticipate that the number of remaining cases raised under the old regulations should reduce each year as they are finalised.

Users should be mindful these statistics do not present a complete picture of cases finalised in the years ending 31 March 2022 onwards, as they do not include cases which came to the forces’ attention prior to 1 February 2020.

Data is extracted from Centurion and forces may use other systems

The data referred to in these statistics is obtained from Centurion, an operational tool for the recording and processing of professional standards data within police forces, used by each of the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. Forces may be recording cases on local systems which are not captured on Centurion; these cases will not be reflected in these statistics. Through discussions with forces, this is particularly apparent for recording conduct matters against police staff and complaints which are handled outside of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. These statistics are therefore likely to be an undercount of all cases.

Centurion is an operational tool

Centurion is a live system; the collection of live operational data for the production of statistics presents difficulties. Hence, the Home Office has collected information on police complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters which have been finalised in the financial year. These cases are therefore unlikely to undergo revisions given the case is now finalised.

While the data has undergone quality assurance checks by Home Office statisticians and police forces, as with all administrative data sets used for the production of statistics, there are known limitations and data quality issues to consider as outlined in this chapter.

3.2 Counting conventions

“Investigating” field for data extraction

Data in the first release of this publication series (covering the year ending 31 March 2021) covered cases that were deemed serious enough to require investigation. To extract the required data from Centurion, a filter was applied to only export those cases that are selected from a drop-down field with an “investigating” status. Whilst this field is mandatory, there is a risk that forces might have incorrectly populated this field with a different response and some cases not captured in the data extraction. In addition, forces may have incorrectly selected “investigating” resulting in the presence of cases that should have been excluded from the report.

For releases covering the financial year ending 31 March 2022 onwards, this filter was removed from the data extract. This means all cases finalised, regardless of whether they were deemed serious enough to require investigation, are provided to Home Office. This enables users of the data to gain a fuller picture of the number of complaints and conduct matters finalised. For these reasons mentioned above direct comparisons should not be made between statistics covering the year ending 31 March 2021 and the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards.

Complaint cases handled outside of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002

When a complaint is first made, and referred to the appropriate authority, a decision on whether to record and handle the complaint under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 is taken by the relevant body. A number of forces do not use Centurion to record complaints handled outside of Schedule 3, instead opting to use their own local system. Whilst a figure is provided for the number of complaints handled outside of Schedule 3, it is likely an undercount of the full extent of complaints. The bulletin therefore focuses on allegations handled under Schedule 3 only.

Counting individuals

When counting individuals involved in complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters, the subject reference field from Centurion has been used. When preparing the data for the year ending 31 March 2022, the Home Office became aware that this field generates a specific subject reference for each case. For example, if a case involves 2 individuals, they would both receive a specific subject reference. However, if an individual is involved in 2 separate cases, they will receive a different subject reference in each of those cases. If an individual is involved in 2 allegations as a part of a single case, they will be counted once. If an individual is involved in multiple cases, they will therefore be counted multiple times.

The Home Office has resolved this issue for the year ending 31 March 2023, and now uses the staff reference field from Centurion. This staff reference remains the same for an individual regardless of the number of cases they are involved in or allegations that are raised against them. This means that if a case involves 2 individuals, they would both receive a specific staff reference and be counted as 2 individuals. Additionally, if an individual is involved in 2 separate cases, their staff reference will remain the same for each case so can be counted as 1 individual. The data is anonymised, and Home Office Statisticians are not able to identify specific individuals from the data.

Due to the amendments in the counting methodology, it not possible to directly compare data for the year ending 31 March 2023 to that of previous years, as it is counted on a different basis.

Information on gender

“Gender” usually represents a social construct or sense of self about how a person defines themselves. “Sex” on the other hand is considered to refer to whether someone is male or female based on their physiology.

Currently, the field on “gender” in the Centurion system includes the categories “male”, “female”, “other” and “not known”. Although these statistics report on “gender”, in reality the Centurion system is likely collecting a mix of data on gender and sex. For the purpose of these statistics, we are reporting the data in the format it is collected.

The Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing have been collaborating in developing a National Standard for Workforce Data. The data standards draw on existing harmonised standards set out by the Government Statistical Service and aim to bring more standardisation within policing for the collection of data on protected characteristics. The Home Office and NPCC continues to work with Force Information Systems (who maintain the Centurion system) to develop our understanding of the protected characteristics data which is recorded on Centurion and ensure it aligns with the National Standard for Workforce Data.

Information on age

The number of individuals subject to complaints, conduct matter and recordable conduct matters by age group has been included since the year ending 31 March 2022. Age has been calculated based on the date the case was received. Where either the ‘date of birth’ or ‘case received date’ field on Centurion are incomplete this has been recorded in the “not known” age group. A small number of cases where the date of birth was unrealistic, for example, dates which made the subject of the case under 16 years old or over 90 years old have also been included in the “not known” age group. One force fed back to the Home Office that where an individual has not been identified, their date of birth is set to the date the case was received, although when counting individuals in allegations, individuals that could not be identified by police forces have been excluded.

Timeliness measures

Measures on the number of days taken to finalise conduct and recordable conduct cases were added to the publication from the year ending 31 March 2022.

The publication series includes cases finalised under the current regulations and, as such, does not include cases received before February 2020. Timeliness measures also reflect this and only cover the timeliness of cases finalised under the current regulations. Therefore, timeliness measures underestimate the average time taken to finalise a case as cases finalised under the old regulations are not included.

Timeliness measures are calculated by comparing the date a case was received, with the case finalisation date. In a small number of cases the received date was not recorded. These have been excluded from the timeliness analysis. Furthermore, timeliness measures cover all calendar days and do not take into account non-working days such as weekends and public holidays. Therefore, the timeliness measures may overestimate the average time taken to finalise cases raised under the new regulations.

Examples of how cases, allegations and individuals are counted in this publication

Complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters can either be counted at a case level, allegation level or by individual involved. One case can involve multiple individuals and multiple allegations.

Each case finalised will be counted once for each staff type involved. Where a case involves both officers and staff, this will be counted once under each worker type. Timeliness measures are counted at a case level. If a case involved multiple allegations against multiple individuals, this will be counted as one case.

Each individual who is subject to a complaint, conduct matter or recordable conduct matter case will be counted once for each case type they are linked to. For example, if an individual is subject to one police complaint and one conduct matter they will counted twice, once as an individual that was involved in a conduct matter case and once as an individual involved in a police complaint case. Protected characteristics are counted at an individual level. Referrals to proceedings and appeals to the PAT are counted at an individual level. Appeals to the PAT are counted once per individual per case appealed. Each referral to proceeding is counted once per individual per hearing date regardless of the number of allegations. Therefore, if 1 police officer was referred to 2 different proceedings with 2 different hearing dates this will be counted as 2 referrals to proceedings. Furthermore, if 3 police officers were referred to the same proceedings with the same hearing date this will be counted as 3 referrals to proceedings.

Each allegation may have a separate case to answer decision, action taken, proceeding type, misconduct finding level and outcome at proceedings (if applicable) within a case. Multiple individuals may be involved in a single allegation and could face different results, actions, or outcomes at proceedings. A single allegation involving 2 individuals is therefore counted twice in these statistics. Results and actions are counted at an allegation level.

Example 1

A complaint is received from a member of the public concerning Officer A and Officer B. This complaint includes 2 allegations, Allegation 1 involving Officer A and Allegation 2 involving both Officer A and Officer B.

Once finalised this example would be counted in our statistics as:

• 1 complaint case involving a police officer
• 2 individual police officers involved in a complaint case
• 3 distinct allegations (Allegation 2 is counted once for each officer as each officer may face different outcomes)

Example 2

A conduct matter is raised involving Officer C and Police Community Support Officer D. This conduct matter includes 1 allegation, involving both workers. Officer C is found to have a case to answer for misconduct and the allegation is referred to proceedings. Police Community Support Officer D is found to have no case to answer and no action is taken.

Once finalised this example would be counted in our statistics as:

• 2 conduct matter cases – 1 conduct matter case involving a police officer and 1 conduct matter case involving police staff
• 2 individuals involved in a conduct matter – 1 individual police officer involved in a conduct matter and 1 individual member of police staff involved in a conduct matter
• 2 distinct allegations – 1 involving a police officer with a case to answer and an action of “referral to proceedings” and 1 involving a police staff member with “no case to answer” and “no action” taken
• 1 referral to proceedings – 1 individual police officer with a case to answer and an outcome of “referral to proceedings”

Example 3

A conduct matter is raised involving Officer E. This includes 1 allegation. There is no case to answer. Not all behaviour which falls short of the standards of professional behaviour engages the discipline system and is referred to proceedings. Other processes may be initiated when such behaviour is identified that does not warrant disciplinary action (which means there is no case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct) but does require improvement. Action was taken and the allegation was referred to Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures (UPP). Six months later Officer E is involved in a second conduct matter, consisting of 1 allegation. This allegation is found to have a case to answer for misconduct and the allegation is referred to proceedings.

Once finalised this example would be counted in our statistics as:

• 2 conduct matter cases involving a police officer
• 1 individual police officer involved in a conduct matter
• 2 distinct allegations involving a police officer – 1 with “no case to answer” and an action of UPP and 1 allegation with a case to answer and an action of “referral to proceedings”
• 1 individual referred to misconduct proceedings

3.3 Known issues

Data only captures cases recorded under the new regulations

Users should bear in mind that the scope of these statistics changed in the year ending March 31 2022, to cover only cases handled under the 2020 regulations. This means these statistics do not present a complete picture of cases finalised in the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards as they do not include cases which came to the forces’ attention prior to 1 February 2020.

Data is extracted from Centurion and forces may use other systems

The data referred to in these statistics is obtained from Centurion. Forces may be recording cases on local systems which are not captured on Centurion; these cases will not be reflected in these statistics.

Recording of conduct matters against police staff

Staff data should be used with caution, as it may be incomplete and not directly comparable across forces. The Conduct Regulations apply only to police officers (including special constables). Members of police staff are governed by misconduct procedures adopted locally by forces. There may be variances between forces in the procedures adopted for handling conduct matters against police staff.

The majority of police forces use Centurion to record conduct matters against police staff. However, a number of forces do not handle police staff discipline within their Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), instead these matters are dealt with by Human Resource (HR) departments. Matters dealt with by HR departments may not be recorded on Centurion. Some PSDs will record conduct matters against staff on Centurion even though their department is not investigating the case.

Complaint cases handled outside of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002

When a complaint is first made, and referred to the appropriate authority, a decision on whether to record and handle the complaint under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 is taken by the relevant body. A number of forces do not use Centurion to record complaints handled outside of Schedule 3, instead opting to use their own local system. Whilst a figure is provided for the number of complaints handled outside of Schedule 3, it is likely an undercount of the full extent of complaints.

Case results and outcomes inapplicable with the regulations

The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 set out how cases should be handled and the possible results and outcomes that are applicable to each type of case. In a small number of cases, subject results, actions and outcomes at proceedings recorded in Centurion do not correspond to the expected outcomes set out in the regulations. Where this is the case, the Home Office has engaged with forces to clarify and correct these errors, however a small number of errors may remain in the data. It will take time for the changes in regulations to embed in PSDs handling of these cases and recording of this information on Centurion.

Missing data

Unknown or incomplete responses were identified whilst quality assuring the data, which is not unusual for a large operational and administrative data set like Centurion. The Home Office will continue to work with forces to find solutions and improve the quality of these statistics in future to provide more detailed published statistics. If data is missing, this is highlighted in the relevant table or text.

Missing data: protected characteristics

For a small number of cases information about a person’s protected characteristics, such as gender, self-defined ethnicity and age are unknown.

The protected characteristic fields on Centurion are mandatory (which means a case cannot be closed without these fields being populated) however ‘unknown’ is a valid response. To aid with completing these fields, it is possible for forces to link their Centurion system to their HR system, to pull across information already known about an individual from their HR record. However, not all forces are currently using this functionality. Even in cases where this functionality is used there may still be cases where a person’s protected characteristics are unknown, for instance, if the individual has chosen not to self-declare on their HR record.

Self-defined ethnicity data for Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

In the ‘Police misconduct’ publication data tables covering both the year ending 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022, the self-defined ethnicity of individuals with an allegation raised against them for the MPS are recorded as ‘unknown’.

The MPS were recording self-defined ethnicity, however, due to a technical issue which was investigated and subsequently resolved, this information was not being pulled through correctly to the self-defined ethnicity field on the Centurion system and therefore the data did not feature in the Home Office report exacted from Centurion. The police workforce statistics, as at 31 March 2022, shows the MPS are the most ethnically diverse police force in England and Wales; with 16.6% of police officers (headcount) in the MPS identifying as ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities). This has been calculated by excluding where the ethnicity of the officer was not known; 1.8% of police officers (headcount) employed by MPS were recorded with an unknown self-defined ethnicity as at 31 March 2022.

The Home Office have subsequently resolved this issue and data tables featuring self-defined ethnicity for the year ending 31 March 2023 onwards will include the ethnicity data for the MPS.

Missing data: unidentified individuals

As a result of expanding the data collection from the year ending 31 March 2022, to include all cases finalised and not just those deemed serious enough to warrant an investigation, an increase in the number of individuals with unknown protected characteristics was seen. Upon raising this with the 43 police forces, many forces fed back that the increase had been driven by the fact that it is not always possible to identify all individuals involved in a case. This is particularly true for complaints cases that were not subject to investigation which now make up a large portion of allegations in these statistics.

In year ending 31 March 2022, the Centurion extraction report did not distinguish between cases where an individual was not specifically identified and cases where the individual was identified but their protected characteristics were unknown. ‘Unidentified’ and ‘not known’ were therefore a grouped category in these statistics.

The Home Office, in collaboration with police forces and Force Information Systems (FIS) have since resolved this issue for publications from the year ending 31 March 2023 by adding an additional ‘Staff Unidentified’ field that allows the Home Office to determine cases whereby protected characteristics are unknown due to an individual being unidentified. When counting individuals in allegations, individuals that could not be identified by police forces have been excluded.

Timeliness measures

Measures on the number of days taken to finalise conduct and recordable conduct cases were added to the publication from the year ending 31 March 2022. These measures only cover the timeliness of cases finalised under the latest regulations and as such do not include cases received before 1 February 2020. Therefore, the timeliness measures understate the median time taken to finalise a case should all cases be included. We anticipate that the number of remaining cases raised under the old regulations should reduce each year. In addition, measures on the number of days taken to finalise conduct and recordable conduct cases are based on when the police force record the case as ‘finalised’ on Centurion. There may be a delay between finalising a case and recording it as such on Centurion; this may inflate timeliness measures. The Home Office are working with FIS and police forces to further expand our timeliness analysis.

Proceedings type for cases handled under 2012 Regulations

Data in the first release of this publication series (covering the year ending 31 March 2021) included cases handled under the 2012 and 2020 regulations. Data on the type of proceedings was present in the Centurion report the Home Office received for cases handled under 2020 regulations, however, it was not present in the Centurion report the Home Office received for cases handled under the 2012 regulations.

Therefore, in the year ending March 2021 data on the type of proceedings was extracted from the “Proceedings Type” field for cases handled under the 2020 regulations and retrieved from the “Latest Assessment Decision” field, which was the next most appropriate field, for cases handled under the 2012 regulations.

From the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards, the Home Office collected and published data on cases raised under the 2020 regulations only (which includes cases that came to the force’s attention on or after 1 February 2020). As such, this limitation does not apply to these statistics for the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards, as data under the 2012 regulations was not collected.

As mentioned, at the start of this section, users should bear in mind, that the change in scope of these statistics for the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards, to cover only cases handled under the 2020 regulations, means the totals reported are therefore likely an undercount. The total number of proceedings and outcomes reported in the year ending 31 March 2022 onwards will not include cases finalised under the old regulations. Users should therefore be mindful these statistics do not present a complete picture.

3.4 Quality assurance

While the data has undergone quality assurance (QA) checks, as with all administrative data sets used for the production of statistics, there are known limitations and quality issues to consider. Data in this publication series is a reflection of cases as recorded on the Centurion system, and users should bear in mind the limitations highlighted throughout this section when interpreting the data.

Data received by the Home Office for the production of these statistics has undergone a QA process to ensure the data is fit for purpose. Any data quality issues are flagged to forces ahead of publication and resolved where possible. Before publication, data is sent back to forces to ensure it is a correct representation. Details of any known data quality issues are included in section 3.3 of this user guide, the relevant parts of the bulletin, and the associated data tables.

All data has undergone a QA process. Data that is widely used, and that informs important and high-profile decisions, receives the highest level of QA. Other data has undergone a more limited, but proportional level of QA. This ensures the data is fit-for-purpose in terms of the individual uses of each data set. The QA checks for the data include looking for things such as:

• missing or incomplete data
• inconsistencies in the data
• extreme values

Given the changes in the scope of these statistics in the year ending 31 March 2022, trend analysis had not been possible for these statistics. Further development continues to take place to these statistics and QA processes will develop in parallel. It is the intention of Home Office statisticians to undertake trend analysis to look for unusual or unexpected year-on-year trends in the data once a comparable data set has been developed.

3.5 Official Statistics in Development status

For the reasons mentioned throughout this user guide, the data is ‘Official Statistics in Development’^{[footnote 2]}, to acknowledge that it is official statistics undergoing development and should be interpreted with caution. More information can be found in the OSR’s guidance on producing official statistics in development.

‘Official statistics in development’ status provides a clear statement of the nature of the official statistics going through development, with a potentially wider degree of uncertainty in the figures whilst processes are established and verified.

These statistics do not yet meet the overall quality standards necessary to be Accredited Official Statistics. ‘Accredited Official Statistics’ are judged by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) to comply with the Code of Practice for Statistics meaning they meet the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value as set out in the Code. The Home Office intends to improve the completeness and quality of the data in future years. The Home Office will continue to work with PSDs within police forces to improve the quality of the data and to provide more detailed published statistics in the future.

4. User engagement

4.1 User engagement

The Home Office continues to engage with key users of these statistics to ensure they are developed to meet user needs. These users include policy and research officials within the Home Office and data providers across police forces in England and Wales.

The Home Office statisticians continue to develop their understanding of these statistics through the collection and quality assurance of the data with police forces. Engaging with Professional Standards Departments (PSDs) has enabled the Home Office to understand the limitations associated with the data.

The Home Office also regularly works with Force Information Systems (FIS) who maintain the Centurion system, used by all police forces in England and Wales, to ensure the information extracted from Centurion is fit for purpose.

As the data is Official Statistics in Development, the Home Office intends to improve the completeness and quality of the data in future years. The Home Office will continue to work with PSDs within police forces to improve the quality of the data and to provide more detailed published statistics in the future.

4.2 User engagement survey

To expand our user reach we have launched a user engagement survey to help shape future publications of these statistics.

We want to further identify current users and uses of the data, as well as provide a chance for users to give their suggestions on how the publication can better meet their needs. Whilst the survey will be anonymous by default, we encourage regular users who are interested in establishing an ongoing dialogue with the Home Office to provide their contact details when prompted, as this will help develop the statistics and our user engagement plan.

Following the year ending 31 March 2023 publication, released in January 2024, which included signposting users to the engagement survey, the Home Office will monitor responses received and assess whether there are improvements which can be made ahead of the year ending 31 March 2024 publication.

4.3 Feedback and enquiries

We welcome feedback on these statistics. Any feedback or enquiries should be emailed to policingstatistics@homeoffice.gov.uk or made in writing to:

Police and Fire Analysis Unit
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Please email policingstatistics@homeoffice.gov.uk if you have any statistical comments or need any assistance in accessing the data.

Home Office Responsible Statistician: Rosanna Currenti, Head of Policing Statistics.

5. The police misconduct system

Introduction

The police complaints and disciplinary systems are key for maintaining confidence in policing, upholding high standards in policing and protecting the public. The systems facilitate the public and those serving within the police to raise concerns about the behaviour of an individual serving with the police.

The systems are governed by different pieces of legislation, and this dictates how a particular matter is handled. This includes differences between the processes involved for police officers and members of police staff.

Police complaints from members of the public, recordable conduct matters and death or serious injury (DSI) matters are handled under the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 (the “Complaints Regulations”). Whereas internal conduct matters are handled under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (the “Conduct Regulations”). Whilst there are similarities between the systems, there are some distinct differences in how matters are handled.

The Conduct Regulations apply only to police officers (including special constables). Members of police staff are governed by misconduct procedures adopted locally by forces. The Complaints Regulations apply to all those serving with the police.

Where an officer is referred to misconduct proceedings, those proceedings are always held under the Conduct Regulations, regardless of what legislation the matter was investigated under. Police staff misconduct proceedings are set out in forces’ local misconduct procedures.

The Standards of Professional Behaviour (SoPB)^{[footnote 3]}, to which police officers must adhere, are a statement of the expectations of how police officers should behave. Not all behaviour which falls short of the SoPB engages the discipline system. Other processes, such as the Reflective Practice Review Process or unsatisfactory performance procedures, may be initiated when behaviour is identified that does not warrant action for misconduct.

This chapter provides further information about the legislation which underpins the handing of police complaints by members of the public (section 5.1), conduct matters (section 5.2) and recordable conduct matters (section 5.3). In addition, this chapter explains criminal proceedings (section 5.4) and the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) process (section 5.5).

Further information about the definitions of key terms can be found in the glossary (chapter 7) of this user guide.

5.1 Police complaints

Definition

Under the current regulations, a police complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction with a police force that is expressed by, or on behalf of, a member of the public. This can cover complaints about policing practice and service failure, as well as complaints about the conduct of its officers and staff.

Introduction

Professional Standards Departments (PSDs) within police forces and local policing bodies usually deal with the majority of police complaints. However, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigates the most serious complaints and set the standards by which the police should handle complaints in their statutory guidance.

Handling of police complaints

Police complaints must be handled in a reasonable and proportionate manner. When a complaint is first made, a decision on whether to record and handle the complaint under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 is taken by the appropriate authority. Certain complaints must be recorded, such as, if there is an allegation that:

• the conduct or other matter complained of resulted in death or serious injury
• if proved, might constitute a criminal offence by a person serving with the police
• if proved, might justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings

A complaint must also be recorded under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, if at any point the person making the complaint wants it to be recorded.

Some complaints may be handled outside of Schedule 3. This provides an opportunity to promptly address the concerns a complainant has raised. For example, the complainant may have their matter resolved promptly in a reasonable and proportionate manner which would not engage the formal requirements provided for in Schedule 3 associated with recorded complaints.

Certain recorded complaints must be referred to the IOPC, who will then decide whether the matter warrants an investigation and, if so, what form any investigation should take. There will also be certain matters which will require an investigation from the force, such as, any complaint where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.

For complaints which are referred to the IOPC, the IOPC can decide whether the investigation should be a local, directed or independent investigation. In a directed investigation, the PSD will carry out an investigation in-line with the terms as provided by the IOPC. In an independent investigation, the IOPC’s staff will investigate the complaint. For complaints which do not require a referral to the IOPC, and those which the IOPC have referred back to the police force, PSDs can carry out a local investigation if appropriate.

Further guidance about the complaints system can be found in the statutory guidance issued by the IOPC.

5.2 Conduct matters

Definition

A conduct matter is any matter that, is not and has not, been the subject of a complaint. The threshold for meeting the definition of a conduct matter is low. There need only be an indication that the person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.

Introduction

In carrying out their duties, those serving within the police are expected to maintain the highest standards of professional behaviour as set out by the Standards of Professional Behaviour in Schedule 2 of the Conduct Regulations and associated police staff misconduct procedures.

Not all conduct that comes to the attention of the appropriate authority will meet the definition and threshold outlined above for a conduct matter. An indication that there has been a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour is not necessarily sufficient to meet the definition of a conduct matter, if disciplinary proceedings would not be justified. If the appropriate authority considers that there is no indication that the behaviour of the person in question may amount to a criminal offence or warrant disciplinary proceedings, the matter can be dealt with under the Reflective Practice Review Process or outside of the Conduct Regulations.

Handling of conduct matters

Conduct matters are handled in line with the appropriate legislation for when the matter came to the force’s attention. Matters are handled under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 if they came to the force’s attention on or prior to 31 January 2020; or under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 if they came to the force’s attention on or after 1 February 2020. These dates differ slightly for members of police staff.

When handling a conduct matter under the regulations, the appropriate authority must first conduct a severity assessment to decide whether, if proven, the allegation would amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither. Under current legislation, misconduct is defined as a breach of the standards of professional behaviour which is so serious as to justify disciplinary action. In practice, this means that it justifies at least a written warning. However, under the 2012 regulations, misconduct was defined as any breach of those standards.

Given the change in definition, any assessment that the matter, if proven, would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct means that it must now be investigated, whereas previously other action could be taken. If the appropriate authority now determines that the allegation would not amount to misconduct, it must then assess whether to refer the matter to be handled under the Reflective Practice Review Process, to be dealt with under the relevant performance procedures, or to take no further action.

Disciplinary proceedings can take the form of either a misconduct meeting where the matter amounts to misconduct, or a misconduct hearing where the matter amounts to gross misconduct, or where there was a final written warning in place at the time of the severity assessment (or the officer had been reduced in rank within 2 years of the severity assessment). In addition, officers can also be referred to an accelerated misconduct hearing where there is sufficient evidence to establish gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities and it is the public interest for the individual to cease to be a police officer without delay. A ‘case to answer decision’ is determined to assess whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable misconduct meeting or hearing panel could make a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct, on the balance of probabilities.

The specific processes and composition of those chairing proceedings differ slightly between police officers and police staff. This includes the fact that misconduct hearings for police officers are heard by a panel chaired by independent legally qualified chairs and there is a presumption for them to be held in public.

At the end of disciplinary proceedings, it is determined whether an individual’s conduct amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct; and, if so, the individual is sanctioned accordingly.

Further guidance about the disciplinary system for conduct matters can be found in the statutory guidance issued by the Home Office.

5.3 Recordable conduct matters

Definition

A recordable conduct matter firstly has to meet the threshold of being a ‘conduct matter’ as defined in section 5.2 which is any matter that is not, and has not, been the subject of a complaint. There must be an indication that the person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings. Recordable conduct matters are a distinct category (and not a subset of conduct matters), where the matter:

• appears to have resulted in the death or serious injury of any person
• has had an adverse effect on a member of the public
• meets any of the criteria set out in regulation 7 of the Complaints Regulations; this includes serious assaults, sexual offences and corruption

Handling of recordable conduct matters

When a recordable conduct matter occurs, it is first decided whether the case must or should be referred to the IOPC. If so, the IOPC will decide whether the matters referred to them should be investigated and how, via:

• independent investigation whereby the IOPC investigates the matter itself
• directed investigation whereby the force PSD conducts the investigation based on parameters set out by the IOPC
• local investigation whereby the force PSD can handle the matter and choose whether an investigation is appropriate

When a case isn’t referred to the IOPC, the appropriate authority will determine whether the matter requires investigation.

Recordable conduct matters are handled under the same legislation as complaints (the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Complaints Regulations) as opposed to the Conduct Regulations.

Further information about the definitions of key terms can be found in the glossary (chapter 7) of this user guide.

5.4 Criminal proceedings

Criminal proceedings are distinct from misconduct proceedings, as there are different tests and thresholds applied. For example, while a criminal conviction relies on a burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, misconduct proceedings are in line with civil proceedings and rely on the balance of probabilities. This means that for criminal cases which do not result in conviction or are unsuitable for criminal prosecution, the individual can still be subject to misconduct proceedings and potentially be dismissed. In addition, where cases do result in criminal conviction, the individual can also be subject to misconduct proceedings.

The Home Office collects data on the number of police complaints, conduct matters and recordable conduct matters, recorded on Centurion, that were finalised in the financial year, which involved criminal proceedings. This includes whether the individual was convicted or not.

5.5 Police Appeals Tribunal

All officers have the right to appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT), in accordance with Schedule 6 to the Police Act 1996 and the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2020, against any disciplinary finding or disciplinary action imposed at a hearing or accelerated hearing held under the Conduct Regulations. Non-senior officers also have the right to appeal against a finding or outcome made under the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020. Senior officers, in addition, have the right to appeal to a PAT against any disciplinary finding or outcome imposed at a misconduct meeting. The data excludes appeals raised under Regulation 45 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Appeals raised under Regulation 45 concern appeals from officers, other than senior officers, following misconduct meetings.

A police officer may not appeal against any finding of misconduct, gross misconduct, finding of unsatisfactory performance, unsatisfactory attendance or gross incompetence, where they have accepted the allegation against them. In these circumstances, the officer may only appeal against the outcome or disciplinary action that has been imposed against them.

An appeal hearing is not a re-hearing of the original matter. The grounds of appeal for matters dealt with under the Conduct Regulations are either:

• that the finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable
• that there is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct hearing or accelerated hearing, which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action
• that there was a breach of the procedures set out in the Conduct Regulations, Complaints Regulations or Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action.

Further guidance about PATs can be found in the statutory guidance issued by the Home Office.

6. Other data sources

6.1 Police complaints

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) collects and publishes data on complaints against the police in England and Wales. There are similarities between the Home Office and IOPC statistics; both cover cases handled under the new regulations only. However, the IOPC statistics are collected on a different basis to the data covered in this statistical series.

The IOPC statistics include all complaints raised within the financial year. The Home Office data does not show the full picture of complaints received; rather the number of complaints finalised in the financial year irrespective of when the case was received. The IOPC statistics are therefore considered a more reliable data source for the total volume of police complaints. As such, data relating to police complaints in the Home Office publication series should not be used to measure the total volume of complaints received by the police in England and Wales.

In addition, the Home Office statistics only include cases recorded on Centurion. Some forces record complaints on local systems and not on Centurion as outlined in the known issues section (section 3.3). Through discussions with forces this is particularly apparent for recording complaints which are handled outside of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. The IOPC’s statistics include all complaints regardless of the system the complaint was recorded on. The IOPC statistics are therefore considered a more reliable data source for the total volume of police complaints.

Due to some forces recording complaints on local systems, particularly for those handed outside of Schedule 3, the Home Office statistics primarily focus on complaints handled under Schedule 3 which are recorded on Centurion. These statistics are therefore likely to be an undercount of all complaint cases. The IOPC’s statistics include all complaints recorded regardless of whether it was handled under or outside of Schedule 3. The IOPC statistics capture considerably more detail about complaints handled outside of Schedule 3 compared to the Home Office statistics.

Furthermore, the IOPC statistics cover England and Wales and the British Transport Police whereas the Home Office statistics do not include the British Transport Police. Both publications include City of London, however, the IOPC statistics include complaints received by City of London about Action Fraud whereas the Home Office figures for City of London do not include complaints about Action Fraud.

The latest annual police complaints statistics for the year ending March 2023 are published by the IOPC.

6.2 Police complaint reviews

A complaint review can be lodged by a complainant, Under Schedule 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, if they are unhappy with how their complaint has been dealt with or the final outcome received. Where a review is requested and is eligible, this would be carried out by the IOPC or the local policing body (which in the vast majority of cases will be the Police and Crime Commissioner’s office). The IOPC collect information on complaint reviews. Data on complaint reviews is included in the latest annual police complaints statistics published by the IOPC for the year ending March 2023.

6.3 Data previously published by the Home Office

Police workforce statistics

Previously the Home Office published data on police misconduct cases and criminal investigations involving police officers and staff in the ‘Police workforce, England and Wales’ publication series; this data goes up to the year ending March 2020.

Following the introduction of new legislation, the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, in February 2020, the Home Office expanded its data collection on police complaints and conduct matters from aggregate-level data to case-level data. The resulting data set on complaints and conduct matters was therefore much larger in size and richer in detail than that previously received. For this reason, and to allow additional time for processing and checking, a decision was made to publish the data in a stand-alone statistical release rather than as an annex to the ‘Police workforce, England and Wales’ publication series.

There have been significant changes to Police Conduct Regulations between the 2012 and 2020 legislation, including changing the definition of what constitutes misconduct and widening the definition of a complaint. It also includes amendments to available disciplinary outcomes, removing the use of management action or management advice and introducing the new reflective practice review process.

Given the significant changes to conduct legislation, as well as changes to the way in which data is extracted from the Centurion system, it would not be meaningful to compare the data to that of previous years.

Home Office review: Police officer dismissals

In September 2023 the Home Office published a review into the process of police officer dismissals. As part of this review the Home Office collected data on police officer dismissals under the Police (Conduct) Regulations, the Police (Performance) Regulations and Regulation 13 of the Police Regulations 2003.

The data collected as part of the review includes cases that were handled under the 2012 and 2020 Police Conduct Regulations legislation. As such, this data is not directly comparable to the ‘Police misconduct’ statistics.

7. Glossary

Accelerated misconduct hearing (previously known as a Special Case Hearing) – a hearing brought when there is sufficient evidence (on the balance of probabilities) that the conduct of the officer concerned constitutes gross misconduct and that it is in the public interest that the officer concerned ceases to be a member of a police force or a special constable without delay.

Appropriate authority – for a person serving with the police (who is not the chief officer or acting chief officer), the appropriate authority is the chief officer of the force concerned.

Allegation – a claim relating to a complaint or conduct matter.

Barred list – the barred list shows all officers, special constables and staff members who have been dismissed from policing after investigations under the Police (Conduct) Regulations or Police (Performance) Regulations or associated staff procedures. Inclusion on the Barred List prevents the individual from re-joining specific policing in the future. Further information about the barred list can be found on the College of Policing’s website.

Case to answer decision – a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable misconduct meeting or hearing panel could make a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct, on the balance of probabilities.

Conduct matter – any matter that is not and has not been the subject of a complaint, which indicates that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in such a way that would justify disciplinary proceedings.

Death or serious injury matter – any circumstances (unless the circumstances are or have been the subject of a complaint or amount to a conduct matter) in, or as a result of which, a person has died or sustained serious injury and the person:

• had been arrested by a person serving with the police
• was otherwise detained in police custody
• at, or before the time of the death or serious injury, the person had contact, whether direct or indirect, with a person serving with the police who was acting in the execution of their duties and there is an indication that the contact may have caused (whether directly or indirectly) or contributed to the death or serious injury

Whereby serious injury means a fracture, a deep cut, a deep laceration or an injury causing damage to an internal organ or the impairment of any bodily function.

Directed investigation – an investigation conducted by the appropriate authority under the direction and control of the IOPC. The IOPC directs the investigation in terms of its scope, investigative strategy and findings of the report.

Disciplinary action – either a written warning, final written warning, reduction in rank or dismissal without notice. Under the 2012 regulations this included management advice but did not allow reduction in rank. Police staff can also be dismissed with notice, but reduction in rank is not an available sanction.

Discontinuance – where forces are able to end an ongoing investigation into a complaint in certain circumstances, such as where a complainant had refused to co-operate to the extent it was not reasonably practicable to continue with the investigation.

Dismissal – a sanction which terminates the officer’s appointment, or a member of police staff’s employment, with the police. Dismissals result in the individual being placed on the barred list, preventing them from working in policing again.

Final written warning – a disciplinary sanction following a finding that misconduct or gross misconduct has been proven which remains on the officer’s record for 2 years.

Gross misconduct – a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal.

Independent investigation – an investigation undertaken by the IOPC itself.

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) – the independent body that oversees the police complaints system in England and Wales and conducts investigations into the most serious matters.

Learning from reflection or reflective practice – a non-statutory learning outcome designed to deal with allegations of underperformance or conduct that do not amount to misconduct or gross misconduct, but which fall short of the expectations of the public and the police service. See ‘Reflective Practice Review Process (RPRP)’ which is the statutory outcome.

Local investigation – an investigation conducted by the appropriate authority, usually a force’s Professional Standards Department, on its own behalf.

Management action – a process, under the 2012 regulations only, for dealing with misconduct outside of the formal disciplinary system.

Management advice – a disciplinary sanction, under the 2012 regulations only, where misconduct is proven but a written warning is not justified.

Median – the median is the middle number in a sorted list of numbers.

Misconduct – a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action. Under the 2012 regulations (and earlier police staff misconduct procedures), this was defined as any breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

Misconduct hearing – a hearing to determine whether the conduct of an officer or member of police staff, amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct or neither and whether disciplinary action should be imposed.

Misconduct level finding – the persons conducting the misconduct proceeding will consider the facts of the case and will decide (on the balance of probabilities) whether the officer’s conduct amounted to gross misconduct, misconduct or no misconduct.

Misconduct meeting – a meeting to determine whether the conduct of an officer, or member of police staff, amounts to misconduct or not and whether disciplinary action should be imposed.

Misconduct proceedings – the formal process to hear cases, initiated when it is determined that an officer or member of police staff has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.

Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) – the statutory tribunal for hearing disciplinary appeals by police officers. All officers have the right to appeal to a PAT against any disciplinary finding or disciplinary outcome imposed at a hearing or accelerated hearing held under the Conduct Regulations. In addition, senior officers have the right to appeal to a PAT against any disciplinary finding or outcome imposed at a misconduct meeting as well.

Professional Standards Department (PSD) – a specialist team, within police forces, responsible for handling most complaint and conduct matters for their force.

Protected characteristics – under the Equality Act 2010, the following are deemed as ‘protected characteristics’: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It is against the law to discriminate against a person because of their protected characteristics.

Police complaint – any expression of dissatisfaction with a police force that is expressed by or on behalf of a member of the public. Prior to February 2020, the definition of a complaint had been limited to the conduct of a person serving with the police.

Recordable conduct matter – a conduct matter which involves allegations of conduct that, assuming it to have taken place, appears to have resulted in the death or serious injury of any person, has had an adverse effect on a member of the public or meets any of the criteria set out in regulation 7 of the Complaints Regulations.

Reduction in rank – a disciplinary sanction imposed following a finding that gross misconduct has been proven resulting in an officer being reduced in their substantive rank.

Reflective Practice Review Process (RPRP) – the process set out in part 6 of the Conduct Regulations to handle Practice Requiring Improvement. A similar, non-statutory process exists for police staff. Other non-statutory learning outcomes also exist for all those serving with the police. These processes are designed to deal with allegations of underperformance or conduct that do not amount to misconduct or gross misconduct, but which fall short of the expectations of the public and the police service. See ‘learning from reflection or reflective practice’ which is the non-statutory outcome.

Severity assessment – determines whether the conduct, if proved, would amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither and, if the conduct were subject to proceedings, what form those proceedings would likely take.

Special procedures – these are the procedures which must be followed if an investigation into a member of the police force or a special constable concerns a recordable conduct matter. These procedures are also followed if during the course of an investigation into a complaint, there is an indication that a member of a police force (or special constable), to whom the conduct investigation relates, may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings. These procedures impose duties on the person investigating, further guidance can be found in the statutory guidance issued by the IOPC.

Standards of Professional Behaviour (SoPB) – the statutory standards to which police officers must adhere, set out in Schedule 2 of the Conduct Regulations. The SoPB are a statement of the expectations that the police and the public have of how police officers should behave. The headings below describe each standard:

1. Honesty and integrity.
2. Authority, respect and courtesy.
3. Equality and diversity.
4. Use of force.
5. Orders and instructions.
6. Duties and responsibilities.
7. Confidentiality.
8. Fitness for duty.
9. Discreditable conduct.
10. Challenging and reporting improper conduct.

The Code of Ethics provides a broader framework which underpins these standards. A comparable set of standards are set out in local police staff misconduct procedures.

Unsatisfactory performance – an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank they are currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard. Such matters are handled in accordance with the Performance Regulations or equivalent procedures for members of police staff.

Written warning – a disciplinary sanction following a finding that misconduct has been proven which remains on the officer’s record for 18 months.

1. The Code of Practice for Statistics describes ‘Official Statistics in Development’, as official statistics that are undergoing a development. They may be new or existing statistics, and will be tested with users, in line with the standards of trustworthiness, quality, and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics. ↩

2. These statistics were formerly known as experimental statistics, however the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) introduced new terminology in September 2023. More information can be found in the OSR’s guidance on producing official statistics in development. ↩

3. The Code of Ethics provides greater detail about the expectations underlying each of these standards. ↩