Misconduct appeals (FOI ref: 2081A/25)

Request

Please could you provide the number of successful appeals against misconduct findings for each of the following reporting periods:

• 2020–2021
• 2021–2022
• 2022–2023
• 2023–2024
• 2024–October 2025

For the purposes of this request, I define a “successful appeal” as one in which the original misconduct finding was overturned, rescinded, or materially altered in favour of the appellant following a formal appeal process.

If possible, I would appreciate a breakdown by rank and/or role of the individuals involved, and any indication of the grounds on which appeals were upheld (e.g. procedural error, evidential reconsideration, etc.).

Response

2020 - 21: 2 appeals were successful where the misconduct finding was overturned.

One was in relation to a PCSO where original outcome of dismissal was overturned and instead they were given a final written warning. This was due to mitigating factors and comparable cases not having led to dismissal.

One was in relation to a staff member where original outcome of dismissal was overturned and instead given a final written warning as appeal found there were mitigating factors.

2021 - 22: 0 appeals were successful where the misconduct finding was overturned

2022 - 23: 1 appeal was successful where the misconduct finding was overturned. This was against a staff member where original outcome of written warning was overturned and there was no further action. This was due to the misconduct meeting having been unfair in two aspects.

2023 - 24: 1 appeal was successful where the misconduct finding was overturned. – This a PC where original outcome of dismissal was overturned and instead they were given a final written. The panel considered the breach of the standard was not so grave that it amounted to gross misconduct, and it found that it amounted to misconduct.

2024 - Oct 25: 1 appeal was successful where the misconduct finding was overturned. This was a PCSO where original outcome of dismissal was overturned and they were instead given a final written warning. The appeal still found gross misconduct but reduced the sanction due to mitigating factors.

“It is important to note the force operates under the Police Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Behaviour. This includes challenging any inappropriate behaviour or action which would discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in policing.Our Professional Standards department, take a robust stance and are committed to rooting out abuse of power, criminality and corruption whenever we find evidence of it. This is done by carrying out thorough investigations, offering support and dealing appropriately with anyone found to be acting in an inappropriate manner.”

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that this data has been extracted from a number of data sources used by forces for police purposes. The detail collected to respond specifically to your request may be subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when interpreting the data.

The figures provided therefore are our best interpretation of data which has relevance to your request, but you should be aware that the collation of figures for ad hoc requests may have limitations and this should be taken into account when those data are used.  

If you decide to write an article / use the enclosed data we would ask you to take into consideration the factors highlighted in this document so as to not mislead members of the public or official bodies, or misrepresent the relevance of the whole or any part of this disclosed material.