The Professional Discipline team deals with all types of criminal investigations and prosecutions against serving Police Officers.

The team has represented Officers investigated by the Professional Standards Dept and the IPCC. We are aware of the level of investigations that are carried out and understand how stressful such an investigation can be on the individual Officer (and his/her family members).

There are also key aspects to how we deal with these.

Team Approach

We believe in the importance of working as a team with the accused Officer and his/her “Police Friend”. In our experience, it is important to have this to protect against both the criminal and discipline allegations. The Friend will also often be in a better position to seek further information from the Investigating Officers and what the likely outcome of any investigation will be (that will sometimes not be supplied to the Solicitor).

Aim of interview

On receipt of a Regulation 15 Notice where it is alleged that the “conduct” alleged may constitute “Gross Misconduct” if proven, the accused Officer is normally subject to a criminal and discipline interview. At that stage, working together as part of the team, the ultimate aim is to protect the accused officer’s position. First, to protect against the alleged criminal matter, and secondly to protect the discipline position.

It is vital that the foundation of the defence case is set out in the best way possible for the accused Officer. If it is not, this could make the difference between winning and loosing a case at Trial or at the Misconduct Hearing. Therefore, it is important that the best legal advice is obtained prior to the interview where all angles are covered and nothing is left to chance.

Abuse of Process

Whilst it is difficult to successfully argue Abuse of Process, we are always thinking of situations that could lead to an abuse. Often we are able to identify abuse points at the interview stage, and the foundation for an abuse argument can laid at an early stage (in case criminal or disciplinary proceedings do follow).

We have particular experience in dealing with cases where Computer experts are instructed to advance abuse arguments both at Criminal Trials and at Misconduct Hearings.

An unreasonable delay in service of the Regulation 15 Notice may lead to an abuse argument if misconduct proceedings followed where the officer’s position had been prejudiced. Eg. it was no longer possible to obtain certain types of evidence due to the delay in service of the Regulation 15 Notice and notification to the accused officer that he/she was subject to a criminal allegation.

A successful abuse of process argument will stay the case against the accused officer.

Contempt of Court Act applications

In Criminal proceedings we will always consider, and wherever possible, make an application under S.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent the publication of the accused Officer’s name and/or address. We have experience of successfully making many applications.

Specialist Counsel

We have excellent relations with and only instruct the best Police Discipline Barristers in the UK. We only want the very best and leading individuals - who are as passionate about winning as we are. Many have been involved in high profile cases that have set Criminal and Police Discipline precedents.

Experts

Like our barristers, we only instruct the leading expert witnesses. These include experts in Computer Forensics, Psychiatrists, Road Traffic, Use of Force, etc - all of whom are very familiar dealing with Officers and the Police disciplinary regime
.
The right expert can help make the difference between winning and loosing a case at Trial or before a Misconduct Hearing.

Success record

Our team has defended many cases (including but not limited to those below).

The results speak for themselves:

R v D: Constable charged with Rape. First trial hung jury. Second trial, acquitted by unanimous jury verdict. Complicated case that involved international jurisdiction points.

B: Constable investigated for high profile Midlands Murder. CPS agreed no further action.

M: Constable investigated for Conspiracy to Murder and Misconduct in Public Office. CPS decided no further action.

RvT: Constable investigated for Corruption. Dealt with case at investigation stage.

RvS: Constable charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving whilst on duty. Expert evidence was obtained from two police driving experts. CPS agreed to reduce charge to due care and attention.

RvG: Acting Inspector charged with numerous counts of deception re allegations of fraudulent expenses claims. Acquitted by a unanimous verdict.

RvB: Constable charged with indecent assault. Acquitted at Crown Court.

RvJ: Constable charged with s.47 ABH and False Imprisonment. Acquitted by a unanimous jury verdict.

RvH: Inspector charged with Misconduct in Public Office. Convicted after trial but custodial sentence avoided.

RvE&D: Two Constables charged with Misconduct in Public Office. Acquitted after trial.

RvC&P: Two Constables charged with Perverting the Public Course of Justice and Dangerous Driving. Acquitted after trial at Crown Court.

RvG&M: Two Constables charged with s.47 ABH and theft. Acquitted after trial.

M&R: Investigation of two senior officers for alleged fraud. No further action.

RvL: Constable charged with theft. Convicted in the Magistrates Court. Acquitted at appeal to Crown Court.

RvC: Constable charged with common assault. Convicted in the Magistrates Court. Acquitted at appeal to Crown Court.

RvS: Constable charged with common assault relating to football riot. Acquitted at Magistrates Court.

RvX: Successful opposition of application for a further warrant of detention relating to an officer arrested for Rape. Abuse proceedings threatened. Refused charge.