Police Conduct (Hansard, 16 January 2002)

§ Mr. Denham

Conviction for a criminal offence is a breach of the police code of conduct. Where there is reason to believe that a police officer has breached the code, the chief officer of the force concerned may suspend the officer where it is in the public interest to do so. An officer who is suspended may not resign unless the chief officer agrees. Current procedures therefore enable chief officers to ensure that, in appropriate cases, officers do not resign to avoid misconduct proceedings. It is for the chief officer to determine whether a officer should be suspended.

Where an officer is awaiting sentence for criminal offences and offers his resignation the resignation may be accepted because the maximum penalty a Chief Constable can impose is dismissal. That is a matter for the Chief Constable to decide.

In relation to officers seeking medical retirement, the Government set out its position in paragraph 6.46 of the White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform" (CM 5326). That paragraph said: Regulations now allow for disciplinary hearings to go ahead in the absence of the accused, although the power is not used very frequently. The Government believe that it is wholly unacceptable for sickness or medical retirement to be used as a means of avoiding discipline. This requires strong support from the centre—which we will provide—and firm management action in using the existing power to proceed with hearings in all but the most exceptional cases. We will amend the central guidance and, if necessary, the statutory regulations to achieve this. Where medical retirement is at issue, the police authority should consider whether it would be right to exercise its discretion not to retire the officer where the public interest in completing the proceedings in a misconduct case outweighs the medical condition.

We are still considering recommendation 56 of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry concerning the availability of disciplinary action after retirement.