From Judicial Review to Direct Appeal: Reforming Police Misconduct Appeals in the Crime and Policing Bill 2025

3 Key Points on Reform for the Appropriate Authority’s Attention 

1. Expanded Appeal Rights for Chief Constables
2. Defined Cost Rules at Police Appeals Tribunals (PAT)
3. Closing the Loopholes and strengthening the Barred/Advisory List Regime

Expanded Appeal Rights for Chief Constables 

The Bill amends the Police Act 1996 to broaden the scope of who can appeal decisions made in disciplinary proceedings. Historically, Chief Constables had limited recourse for appealing against the outcome of a gross misconduct hearing, namely resorting to judicial review, which could be time-consuming, resource-intensive and complex. The Bill enables a Chief Officer or the IOPC (in limited circumstances) to appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal against a decision made on finding or sanction in proceedings relating to:

• A police officer (including a chief officer) or former police officer (including former chief officer)
• Special constable or former special constable

This reform allows for a more direct and efficient mechanism to contest decisions; a statutory route to challenge, ensuring the Chief Constable has a fair opportunity to seek redress and reinforce accountability. The benefits of the reform are multifaceted, specifically: 

1. Introduces a streamlined appeal process- this will no doubt lead to more timely resolutions, benefitting both the officer and the Constabulary.
2. Upholds fairness and parity in the disciplinary system- the Chief Constable should not be in a weaker legal position than an officer and reform enables a force to seek remedy at the same specialist tribunal as officers.
3. Strengthens public confidence by ensuring oversight is robust and consistent- reform enables a local policing body/PCCs to pursue a route to appeal in respect of Chief Officers, enhancing their accountability role. The IOPC also has limited ability to appeal, adding another independent check in cases where the IOPC presented. 

Defined Cost Rules at PAT

The Bill introduces a defined costs arrangements to govern PAT appeals, balancing access to recourse with financial accountability. The Bill provides the Tribunal discretion to direct that some costs (that would normally lie with either the appellant or respondent) to be borne by the opposing party- in effect making a costs order. This will likely depend on who initiated the appeal and how the proceedings how the proceedings develop. 

The proposed amendments provide statutory clarity governing who pays what, in summary: 

• Appellants and Respondents generally pay their own costs unless the PAT make and an adverse direction.
• Administrative (or ‘other’) costs come from defined police funds held by the PCC.
• Generally, the IOPC will pay for their own costs unless the PAT direct that costs in whole or part should be paid by the Appropriate Authority (AA). Where the decision appealed against was made in proceedings which the IOPC directed and both parties agreed that the IOPC should present the case, the AA will be responsible for the IOPC costs.

The government expect additional demands on PAT following introduction of the Bill. Introducing a cost arrangement ensures that PAT appeals are possible but not cost-free, with scope for cost shifting, which should discourage unmeritorious or speculative appeals.  

It is not yet clear what the threshold will be for PAT directing costs against the appellant or respondent, especially in cases where an appeal is wholly or partially successful or if an appeal is found to be frivolous. If well implemented, the arrangements could enhance both accountability and efficiency, however the PAT must ensure that the rules do not create injustice of deter valid appeals. Overall, the proceedings will be considerably cheaper than pursuing a judicial review for a force!

Closing the Loopholes and strengthening the Barred/Advisory List Regime

The Bill at sections 173 to 181 updates the position regarding the barred and advisory list. Officers dismissed for gross misconduct are to be barred from re-entering policing or being employed elsewhere in law enforcement agencies. The rationale for introducing these measures is to strengthen the integrity of recruitment and vetting nationally, ensuring consistency and closing loopholes. Under current arrangements, someone dismissed from the National Crime Agency or other special force (e.g. Civil Nuclear Constabulary) may be dismissed, but due to not being covered by the existing barred/advisory list framework, could be recruited into a territorial police force. This runs the risk of seriously undermining public confidence in policing. 

The Bill ensures that law enforcement employer (defined under section 174) may not employ barred persons by consulting all barred lists, which now includes the following: 

• Police barred list maintained under Part 4A of the Police Act 1996
• British Transport Police barred list
• Civil Nuclear Constabulary barred list
• Ministry of Defence Police barred list
• National Crime Agency barred list
• Scottish police barred list maintained under section 59A of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012