header-logo header-logo

Policing the police

Veronica Cowan reports on a case which is creating uncertainty in police serious misconduct cases
  • Reports on impact of Eckland v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset.
  • Asks if Legally Qualified Chairs, who hear serious misconduct cases in the police, should have immunity from suit.

As of late I have taken to reading Lynda La Plante crime novels, and if real police officers indulge in some of the antics her fictional ones do, we really should be worried.

But they will, at least, be held to account, and in the UK that is done by Legally Qualified Chairs and Independent Panel Members (LQCs and IPMs), who are appointed by Police and Crime Commissioners, to serve on police misconduct hearing panels. When police authorities chaired these panels, the process was perceived as the police judging the police. This is an important constitutional step, and the stakes are high, because a police officer accused of gross misconduct is at risk of dismissal. To sit on a panel, individuals must satisfy the judicial-appointment

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll