The force is facing a backlog of disciplinary cases with 335 Metropolitan Police officers waiting for gross misconduct hearings. These hearings involve serious breaches in professional behavior and could potentially result in officers being dismissed if gross misconduct is proven. This backlog represents a significant increase compared to the previous year. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Cundy has stated that the force aims to conduct 30 misconduct hearings and 30 gross incompetence hearings per month.
The force is taking this step in an effort to rebuild public trust and confidence in the wake of various scandals, including the high-profile cases of murder by a serving police officer and the revelation of a former police constable’s history of abuse and rape. In 2016, legally qualified chairs (LQCs) were introduced to oversee police disciplinary panels in order to increase transparency. However, critics argue that the process is too slow and senior officers are more likely to dismiss individuals found guilty of misconduct.
Mr. Cundy emphasized the need for an ambitious plan to manage the large number of hearings and rebuild public trust. He mentioned that this plan would require additional funding, case managers, lawyers, and hearing suites. The support of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is also crucial in ensuring the availability of LQCs to schedule and chair more hearings. These efforts are part of a broader reform aimed at changing the culture and standards within the force.
Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has been advocating for change since assuming his role, recognizing the presence of rogue officers within the force. However, existing rules have limited his ability to dismiss these individuals. In response to high-profile cases, the Home Office conducted a review of the police disciplinary system. Plans were announced in August to overhaul the process, including the possibility of automatic dismissal for officers found guilty of gross misconduct.
Under these proposed reforms, chief constables and senior officers would have increased powers to identify and dismiss rogue staff. They would also regain the authority to preside over misconduct hearings. Force bosses would have the right to challenge decisions, and changes in legislation would enable the dismissal of officers who fail vetting checks.
However, there have been concerns about chief constables assuming the role of “judge and jury” in disciplinary hearings. The plans stipulate that a finding of gross misconduct would typically result in immediate dismissal unless exceptional circumstances are present. The Home Office did not provide a clear definition of exceptional circumstances and stated that it would be up to the disciplinary panel to decide whether they exempt an officer from dismissal.