The long-awaited reforms arising from the Police Accountability Rapid Review (the Rapid Review) have now been implemented through the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/597). These come into force on 30 June 2026 and amend the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 to change the ‘Use of Force’ Standard of Professional Behaviour to:
“Police officers only use force when they honestly believe this to be necessary. The force used should be necessary, proportionate and reasonable.”
This represents one of the most significant developments in police misconduct law in recent years and will be of particular interest to police forces, professional standards departments, and those involved in police misconduct investigations and proceedings.
Two points are especially important.
1. Use of force is now assessed by reference to the Criminal Law Test
In 2023, the Supreme Court decided that the civil law test is the applicable use of force in police misconduct proceedings (it having previously been understood to be the criminal law test). This meant that if the officer acted out of an honest but mistaken belief that they or others were in immediate danger, they could rely on that belief only if the mistake was objectively a reasonable one. This contrasts with the subjective criminal law test which enables the officer to rely on an honest belief regardless of whether that belief was mistaken, or, if mistaken, regardless of whether the mistake was a reasonable one to make.
The Rapid Review, conducted by The Rt Hon. Sir Adrian Fulford and Tim Godwin OBE QPM, was commissioned following the acquittal in October 2024 of Met Police officer Martyn Blake charged with murder of Chris Kaba and concerns of complexity, confusion and delay in the accountability systems when police officers use force. Officers cleared in criminal proceedings could nevertheless face misconduct findings simply because a different legal test was applied. The reviews noted the potential for seemingly inconsistent results depending on the nature of the proceedings (criminal, misconduct) and that significantly protracted proceedings in which different tests are applied is not simply speculative. They recommended that misconduct proceedings involving use of force should apply the same legal test as the criminal law. The Government accepted this.
The practical consequence is that when determining whether an officer’s use of force breaches the relevant standard, decision-makers must the focus is on whether the force used was necessary, proportionate and reasonable according to the circumstances as the officer honestly believed them to be.
Importantly, this does not mean that misconduct proceedings now operate under the criminal standard of proof. Misconduct proceedings still apply the civil standard of proof. Also, as noted in the Rapid Review, it would be a misconception to suppose that an officer’s contention that they held an honest but objectively unreasonable belief will be accepted, however implausible. A highly implausible belief relied on by an officer is unlikely to be found to be honestly held. Also, police officers will not be able to use disproportionate force. It must always be reasonable, proportionate and necessary.
For forces, this will impact decision making at every stage of the process, from initial identification of a conduct matter, referral/recording decisions, case to answer assessments and through to proceedings/appeals. Appropriate Authorities, investigators and those conducted proceedings will need to ensure that allegations involving breach of the use of force standard are assessed according to the new test/standard.
This change is also expected to provide greater protection for officers making split-second decisions under pressure, supporting forces in recruitment and retention in critical roles.
2. The reforms are not retrospective (generally)
The second key feature of the change is that they do not generally operate retrospectively. The new use of force standard will not apply to allegations against a police officer/former police officer which came to attention before 30 June 2026 (or any allegation coming to attention after that a) which relates to such earlier matter and b) at a time when that earlier matter is being handled under relevant legislation). There is an element of retrospective effect for allegations coming to attention on or after 30 June 2026 though because the new use of force standard will apply when assessing that matter (even where the force took place before 30 June 2026).
This is a significant point for police forces. There may be a temptation to assume that ongoing investigations or proceedings involving use of force can now be reassessed under the new test. That is not the case.
Some considerations for forces would be:
- They will find themselves operating two different legal regimes (in terms of the use of force test to apply) simultaneously for some time.
- Investigations and misconduct proceedings which are live before 30 June 2026 will apply the civil law test. There will be no need to amend existing notices of investigation and referral to proceedings for example. Any notices served on or after that date, but concern allegations known prior to it, will still apply the old test.
- Professional Standards Departments will need to identify carefully which regime applies to each case and ensure investigators, legal advisers and panel members are directed accordingly.
Looking ahead
The Government has presented the reforms as a measure designed to provide greater certainty for officers who are required to make difficult and often split-second decisions involving force. The Home Office will be updating its Statutory Guidance of 2020 to assist forces with these changes (and changes made in 2024/2025 as regards officer misconduct hearing chairs, presumption of dismissal for gross misconduct and presumption of accelerated hearings for former officers to name a few).
Mark Knowles is a Legal Director at Weightmans LPP and has significant experience in police misconduct, performance and vetting matters. He advised the Met Police on the Home Office Police Accountability Review, the Rapid Review and represented it in the seminal vetting case of Di Maria v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
For guidance on any aspects of the Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, please contact our expert police discipline and misconduct solicitors.
