Accelerated hearings – changes and opportunity

Overview

Accelerated hearings (AMH) offer AAs the opportunity to dispose of cases quickly and cheaply.  An AMH has an abridged procedural timetable and lasts a day at the most with no witnesses being called. The advantages are obvious, an AA could be waiting months for the usual gross misconduct hearing before a panel. That is all very costly if the officer is suspended or on restrictive duties. Delay undermines public confidence and increases legal costs as the AA has to meet the bill of a full GM hearing. Recent changes in the police conduct regime offer greater opportunities to pursue accelerated hearings.

Referral Tests and Evidence

For the most part the basic tests for referral, the special conditions that allow reference to AMH, remain the same – is there incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct and is it in the public interest to proceed? The categories of incontrovertible evidence are usually clear enough – convictions, positive drugs tests, admissions, CCTV evidence and messages being the most obvious. The IO can produce a report at any time to say that the special conditions apply. The key here is that they should make the report as soon as possible, that not only allows a quick referral to AMH but avoids the costs of a long investigation. Once the report is received the AA can certify the case for AA if they agree that the special conditions are made out.

Post‑Report Referral Changes (May 2025 Amendments)

A peculiarity of the old regulations was that in most cases, though arguably not on conduct, a referral to AMH couldn’t be made once the IO’s report was received. The May 2025 amendments changed that and the AA can refer the matter to an AMH on reading the IO’s report if they believe that the special conditions apply. This new power of post report referral isn’t retrospective – that’s to say it only applies to cases that came to the AA’s knowledge after the 28 May 2025.

Former Officer Cases – New Presumption

The May 2025 regulations introduced a presumption that all former officer cases should be dealt with by way of AMH, regardless of whether the special conditions apply. The key is that it’s a wider power that can apply to any case I theory, not just one where there is incontrovertible evidence. These powers are also retrospective, in other words they apply whenever the allegation came to the notice of the AA, and even if it was before 28 May 2025. Many former officers simply don’t want to engage, leaving the Home Office and AAs with the impression that costly, and in effect uncontested, full panel hearings for former officers were a waste of everyone’s time. The new presumption for AMH for former officers  comes with a few qualifications and AAs should carefully follow the regulations set out in the schedules for former officers that accompany the regulations. The AA has to decide whether they should refer the matter to a full GM hearing. As ever the discretion has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable way. If the evidence is disputed and the officer is engaging it would not seem fair to refer to an accelerated hearing where no witnesses can be called. The AA has to serve notice of intention to refer to an ex officer accelerated hearing, if the officer objects then the matter goes to a normal hearing before a panel. The simple rule to take from all this is that if the officer is not engaging then the matter should be referred to an accelerated hearing, whether or not the special conditions and incontrovertible evidence apply, and is likely to stay there.

Restrictions Where the IOPC Directs a Full Hearing

Can we just mention one peculiarity on the power of the AA to refer former officer matters under the broad May 2025 presumption. The AA cannot do this where the IOPC has already given a direction that a Part 18 (directed) or Part 19 (IOPC independent investigation) should proceed to a full GM hearing. This is consistent with the overall IOPC control of these types of investigations. The interpretation of the regulations is pretty opaque and requires reading back the wording in the ex officer regulations to Regulation 21G of the Police Conduct regulations 2020 as amended. Although the wording is opaque the effect is clear, no ex officer accelerated hearing where the IOPC have directed a full GM hearing. It is still of open for the AA and the IOPC to discuss the application of the special conditions, the normal incontrovertible route to AMH, during and after an investigation. It is only the wider referral that falls outside the special conditions that is lost here.

Hearing Chairs – Increased Flexibility

The recent reforms have also assisted AMH in one very practical way. In the past AMH had to be heard by a Chief Constable. That was sometimes difficult because of their many commitments. The May 2024 reforms, as we know, mean that the Chief Constable can delegate the power to Chair down to senior officers, usually an ACC. ACCs and other Chairs will have more time on their hands, this makes it easier to list and hear an AMH.

Practical Tips for Running an AMH

So that’s the law – when it comes to running the cases can we suggest these practical tips:

• Make sure you comply with the strict timetable set down in Regulation 52. The AA must specify a date for the AMH which must not be less than 10 and not more than 15 working days after the date on which the notice is given pursuant to R51.  In practical terms, identify a hearing date and work backwards to determine the date of service
• Check if the officer is going to engage. This can be ascertained normally by contact with the Federation.
• Check if the officer is to be legally represented and whether they wish for papers to be served on their legal representative or directly on them/The Federation.
• Deal with R53 issues at the earliest stage including drafting representations to the Chair in relation to the contents of the public notice, whether it should be a public hearing and ciphers for witnesses. These can be submitted with the R54 if one is received.
• Ensure that the Chair has an opening note in advance of the hearing. This should normally be done after receiving the R54 from the officer.
• It is not uncommon for officers and their defence teams to challenge the AMH process and apply to the Chair to remit the case to a GM hearing. The Chair does NOT have the power to do so and only the AA can take the decision pursuant to Regulation 50. Some inexperienced Chairs may not be aware of this so ensure that you respond to any such application in the opening note or even on a separate document in response.
• The Chair will have all the documentation in advance so at the AMH, but in most cases this will be a public hearing with possible press interest. When the case is opening on behalf of the AA, it is not enough therefore to simply refer to the bundle contents and therefore ensure that when presenting, you detail the evidential “high points” and defer to the Chair to ascertain if they require anything further to be read into the record.
• Prepare written submissions in relation to outcome. In the case of an uncontested hearing, these can be incorporated into the opening note. If the case is contested, prepare submissions in a separate document to be served on the Chair in the event that GM is found.