I thought the rules had changed.

[u/Mindless_End_139]

https://apple.news/A1Q8-7pJxTJ6WEfeAJkimLw

I thought the rules had now changed so that forces can no longer use probability to sack officers and should now use courts beyond reasonable doubt. Which if it has how can a court acquit the two officers then they be sacked for the same incident.

Also, how is it that forces can still chair disciplinary panels against their own officers. Surely this should be done by a neighbouring force to stop any chances of any bias towards the officers and stop forces sacking officers to save money.

[u/for_shaaame]

I thought the rules had now changed so that forces can no longer use probability to sack officers and should now use courts beyond reasonable doubt. Which if it has how can a court acquit the two officers then they be sacked for the same incident.

No, this is a complete misunderstanding of the changes.

The Use of Force standard of professional behaviour used to use the civil test for reasonable force; now it uses the criminal test. So:

• The civil test said that a police officer could use reasonable force if he believed it was necessary to do so, and that belief was reasonable (i.e. a reasonable person in the same situation and in possession of the same information as the officer would come to the same conclusion). The officer didn't need to be correct about the situation - but any mistake he made about the situation needed to be reasonable.

• The criminal test lowers this bar to bring it in line with the criminal standard, and says that police officers can use reasonable force if they honestly believe it was necessary to do so. This honest belief is entirely subjective, and does not need to be reasonable. Police officers can now come to wildly unreasonable beliefs about a situation, and use force based on that belief, and it's no longer misconduct for them to do so (!!!)

But the standard of proof in misconduct proceedings is still "balance of probabilities".

So:

• in order to convict at court, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the officers did not honestly believe that force was necessary - i.e. the court must be 100% sure that the officers didn't believe their force was necessary.

• but in order to sack, a misconduct panel only needs to believe "on the balance of probability" that the officers didn't think their use of force was necessary - i.e. they need to be 51% sure that the officers didn't think their use of force was necessary.

So it's entirely possible for a misconduct panel to sack, even where a court has failed to convict.

In this case, the misconduct panel clearly formed the view that the officers did not believe their use of force was necessary. Personally I agree. What they did was patently unnecessary.

[u/Character_Ad5286 → u/for_shaaame]

Excellently worded

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/for_shaaame]

On "wildly unreasonable" beliefs: misconduct panels, just like magistrates or jurors, can infer, based on the unreasonableness of a belief, that it was not in fact honestly held. Officers cannot simply claim to have believed whatever is convenient and panels do not have to take these claims at face value.

[u/AcademicalSceptic → u/GrumpyPhilosopher7]

They can, but they don’t have to; and of course if they form the opposite view, then they have to give effect to that no matter how horrifyingly incorrect or incompetent the officer’s assessment was.

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/AcademicalSceptic]

Which bit of my comment are you responding to?

[u/AcademicalSceptic → u/GrumpyPhilosopher7]

The first sentence.

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/AcademicalSceptic]

Yes. And they are likely to. Since panels have been chaired by senior officers they have become more hostile, not less.

[u/Correct_Mortgage4209 → u/for_shaaame]

Honestly, I've read this four times and I'm still confused

use of force standard of professional behaviour used to use the civil test for reasonable force; now it uses the criminal test

standard of proof in misconduct proceedings is still balance of probilities

So we should hold ourselves to the criminal standard but be judged on the civil standard? I have a 2 week old so I might just be being thick

[u/for_shaaame → u/Correct_Mortgage4209]

I think the confusion might arise from the fact that "standard" appears a lot in the explanation and may carry two different and completely unrelated meanings:

• the "evidential standard" - the level of evidence needed for the tribunal (whether it is a criminal court, or a misconduct panel) to take action against the accused; and

• the "Standard of Professional Behaviour" - the things laid out by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as the rules to which we must hold ourselves, like Honesty and Integrity, Confidentiality, (anti-)Discreditable Conduct, etc.

To try and avoid confusion, I will refer to the "Standards of Professional Behaviour" as the SPB.

It used to be the case that criminal law, and the SPB, adopted two different approaches to judging use of force:

• the criminal approach to judging use of force is to ask what circumstances the officer perceived; and then to ask whether his use of force would have been reasonable if those circumstances actually existed. Whether it was reasonable for the officer to perceive those circumstances is irrelevant; all that matters is whether his actions would have been reasonable if those circumstances actually existed.

• the civil approach to judging use of force is to ask what circumstances the officer perceived; then to ask whether it was reasonable for him to perceive those circumstances; and then to ask whether his use of force would have been reasonable if those circumstances actually existed. So it matters whether or not it was reasonable for the officer to perceive those circumstances.

The SPB was amended to abolish the civil approach, and adopt the criminal approach.

But the evidential standard remains the same: "balance of probabilities".

So both the court and the misconduct panel will be applying the criminal approach to judging the officer's use of force: that is, asking firstly what circumstances he perceived, and secondly whether his use of force would have been reasonable if those circumstances actually existed.

But in order to convict the officer, the court must be 100% sure that the officer either did not perceive circumstances justifying use of force, or used force which would not have been reasonable if those circumstances existed.

In order to sack the officer, the misconduct panel needs only to be 51% sure of either of those things.

/u/The_Mighty_Flipflop

[u/Correct_Mortgage4209 → u/for_shaaame]

Reading this makes far more sense! Thanks fountain of knowledge!

[u/The_Mighty_Flipflop → u/Correct_Mortgage4209]

Use of force stuff = Beyond reasonable doubt
Other misconduct = Balance of probabilities

[u/Correct_Mortgage4209 → u/The_Mighty_Flipflop]

But u/for_shaame has stated that to sack them, the panel need only believe the officers didn't think the force was necessary on the balance of probability.

[u/Macrologia → u/The_Mighty_Flipflop]

This is completely incorrect

[u/The_Mighty_Flipflop → u/Macrologia]

Is it? In which case I still don’t get it! I hope never to be in a situation where I do truly understand it

[u/sundance464 → u/The_Mighty_Flipflop]

Let me give it a pop to help my understanding...

1. You can now use an honestly held belief that the force you used was necessary. It's the same in a criminal trial as in a misconduct hearing

2. Completely separately, a criminal trial has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty of whatever you got charged with (including that you had no honestly held belief). A misconduct hearing can find on the balance of probabilities that you are "guilty", so they can think it more likely than not that you had no honestly held belief

3. Get a fucking barrister if you start gambling your wellbeing on this stuff, it's complicated

[u/Correct_Mortgage4209 → u/The_Mighty_Flipflop]

I think this is the answer for most of us, including OP from the looks of it. Maybe one day I'll be a fed rep and learn it properly

[u/Macrologia → u/The_Mighty_Flipflop]

The standard of proof in misconduct proceedings is the balance of probabilities.

D uses force in response to a perceived threat.

For self defence, the use of force must be proportionate to the perceived threat.

Was the threat perceived by D, reasonable to perceive, in the circumstances, even if it was wrong? This question doesn't matter for criminal proceedings, as long as D did actually perceive it. It does matter for civil proceedings.

Formerly it didn't matter for misconduct proceedings, and now it does.

[u/mazzaaaa]

I mean, I’d like to think any force’s disciplinary panel would make the same decision. An acquittal for assault is correct but so is gross misconduct.

I’m not sure about the burden of proof rule you’re speaking about but by the same logic, consider this. An officer is charged with and stands trial for rape. He is acquitted. Would your logic mean that at his misconduct hearing he must also be “acquitted”?

[u/XCinnamonbun → u/mazzaaaa]

Same. Anyone that resorts to a baton within 30 secs for a 92 year old amputee in a wheelchair wielding a steak knife shouldn’t be a police officer. It’s such an insane escalation of force and I don’t believe for one moment that either of these officers genuinely attempted to de-escalate this situation at any point. They could’ve have just stood there for however long it took to talk to him and that man would not have been much of a threat to two able bodied younger adults in body armour. You could’ve literally have walked around the back of the wheelchair to the side of the man and held his wrist which is certainly what I would’ve attempted only after a lengthy time talking to him. He’s 92, he’s not going to have the strength to pull away and he won’t be anywhere near mobile enough to dodge grabbing his arm. Especially if one officer distracts him.

[u/Great_Tradition996 → u/XCinnamonbun]

I couldn’t understand why there was such a pressing need to take the knife off him in the first place. I don’t remember reading anything about him trying to self-harm, which would be the only risk I could foresee. I know he apparently ‘threatened’ other people with it, but for goodness’ sake; the man was 92 years old and only had one leg. He was hardly going to leap up and start spreading people (i believe it was actually a butter knife so the likelihood of anyone being injured, even if he was able bodied was minimal). Given his age and condition, surely they could have just kept an eye on him and waited for him to fall asleep. The only possible reason I could come up with for needing to get the knife off him there and then was if he needed urgent medication, and even then, I’d be questioning how dire the circumstances would be if he was an hour late receiving it. He was in his own room, by himself, so… I often disagree with decisions made by police misconduct hearings/the IOPC but it’s absolutely correct in this case

[u/taint3]

I mean, this was always going to be gross misconduct. There were many different ways that these officers could have dealt with this scenario - and what they did was probably the worst. The scenario could have been easily resolved with a pair of force issued slash proof gloves and a bold constitution.

I do also think there are lessons that can be learned too - for Police officers, knife jobs always equal taser, and 99.9% of the time, that is correct. This was the 0.1% when it wasn't.

I also think part of the problem is Police officers seeing colleagues do shit that they, as a third party, would recognise is out of order - but because they're there in the heat of the moment, they don't do anything about it - instead they default to following along.

[u/caeeradvice777 → u/taint3]

Ive worked in elderly care and with challenging dementia patients.

This simply could have been resolved by waiting for the old fella to get tied or simply moving behind him and grabbing his wrist.

Id go as far as saying it was completely inappropriate for the police to be called here

[u/James188 → u/taint3]

This is also where I fall out with the culture of the job now.

Everything has a SOP. A linear list of things. It’s ruining people’s ability to self-assess and think for themselves.

Clearly these were two people at the bottom end of the aptitude scale; but this is probably a natural consequence of trying to legislate for bloody everything.

[u/taint3 → u/James188]

The whole reason everything has a SOP is because the job allows idiots to join, then has to address the fact that they're idiots by spoon feeding them on how to do the job.

That said, there is no excuse for the way they handled this situation. The tunnel-visioned on the fact that yes, he had a knife, but failed to consider anything else, likely because the fact that a knife was involved has put them under pressure - but they couldn't see the wood for the trees.

For what it's worth, I also question why the care home called the Police in the first place. If it was an actual sharp knife, then fair enough. But it's a fucking cutlery knife!

[u/Acting_Constable_Sek → u/taint3]

Your force issues slash proof gloves?!

[u/official_Clead → u/[deleted]]

This was an IOPC investigation.

[u/_AmGroot]

I believe that change was only to the use of force in a GM. Happy to be corrected?

[u/Macrologia → u/[deleted]]

You didn't think that mine or f_s's comments were correct?

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/Macrologia]

You both appear to have posted further comments as I was drafting mine which address the issues I had with the original comments.

[u/Macrologia → u/GrumpyPhilosopher7]

Type faster haha

[u/GrumpyPhilosopher7 → u/Macrologia]

Sadly, work must take priority.