Taylor Review Report on police disciplinary arrangements

The report has two distinct but complementary parts. The first part is an executive summary which sets out six recommendations which have the support of the programme board. The following groups were invited to participate on the programme board:

u Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

u Association of Chief Police Officers

u Association of Police Authorities

u Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary

u Home Office (Police Leadership & Powers Unit and Police Personnel Unit)

u Independent Police Complaints Commission

u Liberty

u National Black Police Association

u Police Federation of England and Wales

u Specials

u Police Superintendents’ Association

u Unison

From September 2004 this list was extended to include:

u Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association.

u Crown Prosecution Service.

The second part of the report contains the views and comments of the independent chair, Sir William Taylor CBE QPM CCMI, on the rationale and detail that might surround the development of the six recommendations.

Recommendations of the Review

u A new single code, incorporating ethics and conduct, should be produced to be a touchstone for individual behaviour and a clear indication of organisational and peer expectations.

The programme board agree that every effort should be made to make this code applicable to all police officers and staff, but accepts that there may need to be some differences. A possible code, which has been modelled on the Council of Europe Code of Ethics, is set out in an appendix to the report.

u Disciplinary arrangements should be established on the basis of 13 identified key areas, which need to be seen as a whole as there is an obvious inter-dependence and the impact of the proposals would be adversely influenced by inappropriate ‘cherry picking’ of the individual elements.

The 13 key areas are covered in detail in the report. In summary, they cover recommendations that police disciplinary arrangements remain under the control of Parliament and that the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures should be the basis for the regulations. They also cover areas relating to procedures, timescales and management, emphasising that procedures and the language used should be simple, minimal and meet the needs of modern policing by avoiding an overly legalistic or adversarial environment. It recommends that conduct issues should be separated into two distinct groups, namely `misconduct` and `gross misconduct`, and should be dealt with at the lowest possible line management level, misconduct issues not rising above the BCU (or equivalent) level and gross misconduct issues being handled by professional standards departments. It also recommends that all initial reports must be formally assessed (this includes complaints from members of the public or those internally generated) and that there should be designated time limits to which all parties must adhere.

u Subject to any further Home Office consultation, a working group should
be established to construct the detailed requirements for presentation to the Police Advisory Board.

Following the publication of the report, the Home Office announced that a working group led by the Police Advisory Board (PAB) will now take forward the recommendations from the Taylor Review and relevant recommendations from the Commission for Racial Equality`s investigation into the police service and the Morris Inquiry, with a view to developing new police disciplinary procedures.

u An early review of the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures should be instigated as they are a key part of the holistic management of public concerns about policing and the effective internal management of performance.

This recommendation came about as the Review identified that matters of ‘capability’ are in some cases being inappropriately handled as misconduct, because the difference