Gross Misconduct
Examples and Outcomes
What actually counts as police misconduct and gross misconduct, which kinds of behaviour lead to dismissal, and how panels treat each category. Built from the regulations, the College of Policing outcomes guidance and the latest Home Office figures, without naming any case or person.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 3 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated
Gross misconduct is a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour so serious that dismissal would be justified (Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, reg 2(1)); misconduct is a breach serious enough for disciplinary action. Typical gross misconduct involves dishonesty, corruption, sexual misconduct, discrimination, serious violence, data misuse or a serious criminal conviction. For allegations from 28 May 2025, proven gross misconduct means dismissal unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Where the line is: misconduct, gross misconduct or neither
Every conduct case is measured against the ten Standards of Professional Behaviour in Schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. A breach on its own is not enough for disciplinary action. Regulation 2(1) sets two thresholds:
- Misconduct: "a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action".
- Gross misconduct: "a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal". Since 28 May 2025 the definition adds that conduct which has resulted in conviction of an indictable-only offence is to be taken to be such a breach. An indictable-only offence is one that, if committed by an adult, is triable only on indictment, meaning only in the Crown Court (regulation 2A).
- Below misconduct: "practice requiring improvement" means underperformance or conduct not amounting to misconduct or gross misconduct that still falls short of the expectations of the public and the police service (regulation 2(7)). It goes to the reflective practice review process, which is not disciplinary.
Home Office statutory guidance stresses that there is "a clear distinction" between any breach of the standards and a breach serious enough to justify disciplinary action, and that the distinction must be borne in mind at every stage (paragraph 2.13). It also says an allegation that falls short of the College of Policing's Code of Ethics "will not always involve misconduct or require formal action" (paragraph 2.7).
Two things are never misconduct in themselves. Making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) is expressly not a breach of the standards (regulation 2(5)). And poor performance, poor attendance and gross incompetence belong to a different procedure entirely, explained below.
Both thresholds are about what the breach would justify, not what actually happens. That is why a panel can find gross misconduct (a breach serious enough to justify dismissal) and still, since 28 May 2025 only in exceptional circumstances, impose a final written warning or reduction in rank. The finding and the outcome are separate decisions.
How a case is graded: the three decision points
The label "gross misconduct" can be attached, changed or dropped at several points. Knowing which one you are at explains a lot of what happens next.
- Severity assessment (regulation 14). The appropriate authority, in practice usually the force's professional standards department acting for the chief officer, assesses whether the conduct, if proved, would amount to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither. If neither, it decides whether it is practice requiring improvement, a vetting matter, a performance matter or no further action. If misconduct or gross misconduct, the matter must be investigated, and the authority must say whether proceedings would likely be a meeting or a hearing. It can revise the assessment at any time before proceedings start (regulation 14(6)). You are told the result in the regulation 17 notice.
- Investigator's report (regulation 21). The investigator gives an opinion on whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, or none. If new evidence suggests the conduct would be neither, the investigator must report early and the authority must make a fresh severity assessment (regulation 21(4) and (5)). If the investigator believes the special conditions for an accelerated hearing are met, they must say so (regulation 21(3)).
- Case to answer and referral (regulation 23). The authority decides whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct and whether to bring proceedings. A case to answer for gross misconduct must go to a misconduct hearing (regulation 23(10)(a)), or to an accelerated hearing if the authority certifies that there is sufficient written evidence to establish gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities and that it is in the public interest for the officer to leave without delay (regulation 49(2)).
At the hearing itself the panel decides the facts, which standards were breached and whether the proven conduct amounts to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither (regulation 41(15)). It must not find misconduct or gross misconduct unless satisfied on the balance of probabilities, or unless you admit it (regulation 41(16)). A hearing can therefore find misconduct only, even where the case was referred as gross misconduct. The College of Policing says its seriousness framework can also be used at the severity assessment stage.
For the full procedure and your rights at each step, see gross misconduct explained, your rights under investigation and accelerated hearings.
What makes conduct 'so serious that dismissal would be justified'
There is no list in the regulations. Panels must have regard to the College of Policing's Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings (Police Act 1996, section 87; 2022 edition). The guidance says it "cannot and should not prescribe the outcome suitable for every case", and that it is "not possible to categorise all types of case where dismissal will be appropriate" (paragraphs 1.5 and 4.13). What it gives is a method and a list of especially serious types of conduct.
The method
- Assess seriousness by reference to culpability (how blameworthy), harm (actual or risked, including harm to public confidence), aggravating factors and mitigating factors (paragraph 4.3).
- Keep the purpose in mind: maintaining public confidence in and the reputation of the police service, upholding high standards and deterring misconduct, and protecting the public (paragraph 2.3). Proceedings are "not designed to punish" (2.7).
- Choose the outcome that most appropriately fulfils that purpose, considering less severe outcomes first (2.8, 7.4).
Personal mitigation, such as references and a good record, comes after seriousness has been assessed, and its weight is "necessarily limited", particularly where serious misconduct is proven. If the misconduct is so serious that nothing less than dismissal would maintain public confidence, personal mitigation will not justify a lesser outcome (paragraphs 6.4 and 6.6).
The especially serious categories
The guidance lists types of misconduct that "should be considered especially serious" (paragraph 4.14), while saying the list is not exhaustive: a conviction or caution for a criminal offence; operational dishonesty, impropriety or corruption; data protection breaches and misuse of police systems; violence, intimidation or sexual impropriety; abuse of a position of trust or authority; misconduct involving a vulnerable person; discrimination; and violence against women and girls. Each is covered in the category section below.
The 28 May 2025 rule
Once gross misconduct is found, the regulations now narrow the outcome. At a misconduct hearing or an accelerated hearing the disciplinary action must be dismissal without notice unless the panel is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify a final written warning or reduction in rank (regulations 42(3)(b) and 62(1)). If it does not dismiss, its report must explain why and goes to the local policing body. Three points are easy to miss:
- It depends on when the allegation arose. The change does not apply to an allegation that came to the attention of the local policing body, chief officer or IOPC before 28 May 2025, or to a later related allegation while the earlier one is still being handled under the old rules (SI 2025/558, regulation 64). Those cases keep the old choice between a final written warning, reduction in rank and dismissal.
- Constables have fewer options. Home Office guidance says reduction in rank is "clearly not possible for police constables" (paragraph 11.139), so for a constable the only alternative to dismissal is a final written warning, and only in exceptional circumstances.
- "Exceptional circumstances" is not defined. We found no official definition. Treat any claim about what qualifies with caution, and ask your representative how panels in your force area have approached it.
For what each outcome means in practice, see police misconduct sanctions explained and the final written warning guide.
What the latest figures show (cases finalised in 2024/25)
The most recent Home Office release covers misconduct cases finalised by the 43 territorial forces in England and Wales in the year ending 31 March 2025 (Official Statistics in Development, published 22 January 2026). It was the latest edition in the Home Office collection when we checked on 3 October 2026. All of these cases predate the 28 May 2025 dismissal rule.
Which standards allegations are about
Forces record conduct matters and recordable conduct matters against the standard of professional behaviour allegedly breached. Combining the two tables for police officers (public complaints are not broken down this way) gives the picture below.
| Standard | Allegations | Share | Share that were recordable conduct matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discreditable Conduct | 4,317 | 31.6% | 40% |
| Duties and Responsibilities | 2,641 | 19.3% | 22% |
| Authority, Respect and Courtesy | 1,969 | 14.4% | 24% |
| Honesty and Integrity | 1,454 | 10.6% | 30% |
| Orders and Instructions | 897 | 6.6% | 18% |
| Confidentiality | 854 | 6.3% | 19% |
| Equality and Diversity | 641 | 4.7% | 38% |
| Use of Force | 508 | 3.7% | 26% |
| Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct | 265 | 1.9% | 35% |
| Fitness for Duty | 90 | 0.7% | 13% |
| Total (including 17 unknown) | 13,653 | 100% | 29% |
Source: Home Office data tables CM3 and RC3; shares are our calculation. Recordable conduct matters are those that appear to have resulted in death or serious injury, had an adverse effect on a member of the public, or meet criteria in the complaints regulations that include serious assaults, sexual offences and corruption. An allegation involving two officers is counted twice.
What kinds of behaviour, and how far they get
The Home Office also classifies every allegation by the IOPC's allegation categories. These describe the behaviour rather than the standard, and cover public complaints as well.
| IOPC category | Allegations (share) | Case to answer | Of those with a case to answer, referred to proceedings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discreditable conduct | 4,896 (31%) | 35% | 81% |
| Police powers, policies and procedures | 2,313 (15%) | 19% | 76% |
| Delivery of duties and service | 2,006 (13%) | 20% | 72% |
| Individual behaviours | 1,731 (11%) | 29% | 77% |
| Access and/or disclosure of information | 1,309 (8%) | 38% | 82% |
| Sexual conduct | 1,100 (7%) | 53% | 85% |
| Discriminatory behaviour | 767 (5%) | 33% | 90% |
| Other | 705 (4%) | 27% | 78% |
| Abuse of position / corruption | 517 (3%) | 36% | 79% |
| Use of police vehicles | 391 (2%) | 32% | 92% |
| Handling of or damage to property or premises | 108 (1%) | 24% | 65% |
| All categories | 15,843 | 31% | 81% |
Source: Home Office bulletin chapter 3 and the allegations-by-type open data table. Where the bulletin quotes a rate (discreditable conduct 35%, sexual conduct 53%, police powers 19%; referral rates of 92%, 90%, 85% and 65%) our calculation matches it. The other rates are our calculation from the same table.
What happened to officers found to have committed gross misconduct
Of 1,687 officers referred to proceedings, 790 (47%) were found to have committed gross misconduct, 579 (34%) misconduct and 267 (16%) neither; proceedings were discontinued for the rest. Of officers who faced accelerated hearings, 99% were found to have committed gross misconduct.
| Outcome | Misconduct hearing | Accelerated hearing | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissed (serving officers) | 148 | 158 | 306 |
| 'Would have been dismissed' (former officers) | 155 | 234 | 389 |
| Final written warning | 58 | 24 | 82 |
| Reduction in rank | 6 | 3 | 9 |
| Written warning | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| No action | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Officers found to have committed gross misconduct | 371 | 419 | 790 |
Source: Home Office data table MP5. The Home Office reports that 88% were dismissed (82% at hearings, 94% at accelerated hearings) and 11% received a written warning of some kind, almost all of them final written warnings.
More than half of the 695 "dismissals" were former officers. 389 of them were findings that someone who had already left would have been dismissed if still serving. Leaving does not end a gross misconduct case (see resigning before a hearing).
The Home Office does not publish dismissals by category. It publishes case to answer and referral rates by category, but not what happened at the hearing. Any website that quotes a dismissal rate for, say, data misuse or use of force is not using this release.
More figures, including suspensions, timeliness and appeals, are on misconduct outcomes and statistics.
Behaviour by category: what counts and what tends to follow
Each category below gives what the standard says, the typical shape of conduct described generically (no real case is described), how the College of Policing guidance treats it, and the realistic range of outcomes. The outcome range is our reading of the regulations and guidance, not a prediction: every case turns on its facts.
1. Discreditable conduct (including criminal offences)
The standard: officers "behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty", and "report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice".
Typical shape: the IOPC describes this category as behaviour outside the execution of duty that still reflects on the person as a police officer, including criminal offences and arrests, and on-duty acts unrelated to the role, such as theft that is not an abuse of position. Off-duty offending, being arrested, and failing to report your own arrest, charge or penalty notice all fall here. It was the largest category in 2024/25 at 31% of allegations, with 35% reaching a case to answer.
How the guidance treats it: the test is whether the conduct discredits the police service as a whole, not the officer personally (Home Office 2.18). A conviction or caution alone "may lead to discipline or vetting action irrespective of the nature of the conduct itself" (2.15). The College says the criminal sentence is "not necessarily a reliable guide" to seriousness, and "a relatively minor criminal offence may be of the utmost gravity in the professional context" (4.18).
Realistic outcomes: the widest range of any category, from a written warning for a single lower-level lapse to dismissal for serious offending. An indictable-only conviction is gross misconduct by definition for allegations from 28 May 2025. See arrested or criminally investigated and driving offences and misconduct.
2. Honesty and integrity: dishonesty and operational dishonesty
The standard: officers "are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position". 1,454 allegations were recorded against it in 2024/25 conduct and recordable matters.
Typical shape: false entries in statements or records, misleading an investigation, tampering with evidence, falsifying expenses or overtime, or lying in an official document.
How the guidance treats it: the strictest line in the guidance. For operational dishonesty (dishonesty connected with a police operation or investigation), the College, drawing on the Court of Appeal, says dismissal will be "almost inevitable", exceptions will be "very small" in number, and a panel treating a case as exceptional must identify the features that make it so (paragraph 5.4). Corruption, deliberately misleading an investigation or wilfully failing to give proper disclosure are treated as comparably serious (4.28). Off-duty dishonesty varies more: some may be of limited relevance in context, but a dishonest statement in an official or solemn document, such as a mortgage or loan application or a tax declaration, is at the more serious end (4.31, 4.32). "Cases involving any form of dishonesty on duty will always be serious" (4.30).
Realistic outcomes: proven operational dishonesty: dismissal in almost every case. Minor, off-duty dishonesty unconnected with policing: assessed on its facts, so warnings are possible.
3. Abuse of position and corruption
The standard: Honesty and Integrity (not abusing your position) and Authority, Respect and Courtesy (not abusing powers or authority).
Typical shape: the IOPC sub-categories are abuse of position for a sexual purpose, for an inappropriate emotional relationship, for financial gain, for other purposes (such as using a warrant card for preferential treatment), obstruction of justice, and organisational corruption. In 2024/25 there were 517 such allegations against officers, 36% with a case to answer.
How the guidance treats it: abuse of position for a sexual purpose is "a form of serious corruption", covering any on- or off-duty behaviour that uses the position to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a member of the public, and is particularly serious with a vulnerable person (4.44). Officers "must not, under any circumstances" use their position to pursue such a relationship with a vulnerable person (4.50). Using powers in bad faith, for personal gain or at the behest of a friend or relative is placed in the "very serious" category (4.29). Roles with specific responsibility to a person, such as family liaison officer or tutor, raise the expected standard (4.45, 4.46).
Realistic outcomes: strong tendency towards gross misconduct and dismissal where proven, especially with a victim, witness or vulnerable person.
4. Sexual conduct, harassment and violence against women and girls
The standard: usually Discreditable Conduct and Authority, Respect and Courtesy, sometimes Equality and Diversity.
Typical shape: the IOPC sub-categories are sexual assault, sexual harassment (unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature, including comments, propositions, leering and sexual posts on social media) and other sexual conduct. Allegations can come from colleagues and internal reports as well as public complaints: 61% of all allegations in 2024/25 were internally raised conduct matters. This category had the highest case to answer rate (53%) and 85% of those went to proceedings.
How the guidance treats it: violence, intimidation and sexual impropriety "can significantly undermine public trust" (4.40). Predatory behaviour aimed at a sexual or improper emotional relationship makes more serious action likely, and sexual harassment driven by misogyny increases seriousness (4.41, 4.42). The treatment of a single individual "can be sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct" (4.43). Violence against women and girls by an officer, on or off duty, "will always have a high degree of culpability, with the likely outcome being severe" (4.62).
Realistic outcomes: lower-level inappropriate comments can be dealt with as misconduct; sexual assault, predatory behaviour, harassment of a vulnerable person or a pattern of behaviour tends strongly towards gross misconduct and dismissal.
5. Discrimination (Equality and Diversity)
The standard: officers "act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly."
Typical shape: discriminatory language or treatment of a member of the public or a colleague, including in messages and on social media. In 2024/25, race was the largest sub-category (412 of 767 allegations), followed by sex (143) and disability (73).
How the guidance treats it: discrimination "is never acceptable and always serious"; conscious or deliberate discrimination is "particularly serious" because the public cannot have confidence the officer will do their job fairly, and unconscious discrimination can also be serious (4.54 to 4.58). Any element of unlawful discrimination is an aggravating factor (4.76).
Realistic outcomes: 90% of case to answer allegations went to proceedings in 2024/25, the second highest rate. Deliberate discriminatory remarks or messages commonly reach the gross misconduct threshold; outcomes for unconscious or isolated conduct depend on harm, context and insight.
6. Confidentiality: misuse of police systems and information
The standard: officers "treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of police duties".
Typical shape: checking police systems for a personal reason, such as looking up an ex-partner's new partner (an IOPC example), a neighbour or a celebrity; telling a friend or relative what a record shows; sharing images or details from work; mishandling information. This was the fastest-growing category, up 43% to 1,309 allegations. Within it, "use of police systems" had 803 allegations, and our calculation is that 42% of those had a case to answer.
How the guidance treats it: "Under no circumstances should anyone access or use police information for personal benefit", and general curiosity or checking on crime near your home are not acceptable reasons (4.35). Access without a legitimate policing purpose "may merit dismissal in serious cases", but accidental access "will not attract such an outcome" (4.36). Factors pointing to a more serious outcome include onward disclosure, malicious motive, personal gain, compromise to an investigation, very sensitive data, cover-up and altering records (4.37). Officers acting in good faith or on a supervisor's instructions are less culpable and may be better dealt with through the performance regime or reflective practice (4.39). Unlawfully obtaining personal data can also be a criminal offence under section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Realistic outcomes: a genuine error or a one-off look with no disclosure can end in learning or a warning; repeated access, disclosure to others, malice or gain tends towards gross misconduct.
7. Use of force
The standard: for allegations that came to attention from 30 June 2026, "Police officers only use force when they honestly believe this to be necessary. The force used should be necessary, proportionate and reasonable" (SI 2026/597). Earlier allegations use the previous wording: force only "to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances".
Typical shape: force during arrest, restraint or custody alleged to be unnecessary or excessive. The IOPC records it under "police powers, policies and procedures", where the use of force sub-category had 977 allegations in 2024/25; our calculation is that 20% had a case to answer, one of the lower rates.
How the guidance treats it: panels must judge decisions in context, including the policing situation, the officer's rationale and whether a decision-making model was followed, and must not confuse the consequences with what the officer knew or could reasonably have known at the time (4.7). Provocation, threat or disturbance in the heat of the moment is a listed mitigating factor (4.81). But a finding of unreasonable force can be treated as the equivalent of a criminal assault when assessing culpability, even with no conviction (4.23), and deliberate or gratuitous violence is an aggravating factor (4.76).
Realistic outcomes: the range is wide. Most allegations do not reach a case to answer; deliberate or gratuitous violence tends towards gross misconduct.
8. Duties and responsibilities: neglect and poor service
The standard: officers "are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities", and must cooperate openly when identified as a witness in investigations and proceedings.
Typical shape: not attending or following up a call, failing to record or investigate a crime, poor safeguarding decisions, inaccurate information given to a victim. It was the second most recorded standard (2,641 allegations). The closest IOPC category, delivery of duties and service, had one of the lowest referral rates (72%), and 51% of its no case to answer allegations went to learning outcomes.
How the guidance treats it: Home Office guidance says officers have wide discretion and may have to prioritise, which "is accepted and, in many cases, essential for good policing" (2.16). The College warns that low culpability, such as a failure to respond in good time, "can result in significant harm" (4.6). The duty to cooperate applies when you are a witness, not when you are the subject, where the right to silence is upheld (Home Office 2.25).
Realistic outcomes: frequently reflective practice or a warning. Gross misconduct is possible where neglect is deliberate or contributes to serious harm, for example to a vulnerable person.
9. Authority, respect and courtesy: bullying, harassment and attitude
The standard: officers act with self-control and tolerance, treat the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy, and do not abuse their powers or authority.
Typical shape: rudeness, swearing at the public, overbearing or harassing behaviour, bullying of colleagues, unprofessional attitude. The IOPC's "individual behaviours" category had 1,731 allegations; half of its no case to answer allegations went to learning outcomes.
How the guidance treats it: bullying and harassment of colleagues or the public fall within "violence, intimidation or sexual impropriety"; panels look at persistence, the vulnerability of the other person, how many people were affected and whether the officer held authority over them (4.41). Leadership responsibility, where you are expected to be a role model, is an aggravating factor (4.76).
Realistic outcomes: single incidents of rudeness usually end in learning or a warning; sustained bullying, intimidation or abuse of authority can be gross misconduct.
10. Orders and instructions, fitness for duty, challenging and reporting
- Orders and Instructions ("only give and carry out lawful orders" and "abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders"): 897 allegations. Breaching force policy is often misconduct level, though significant deviation from instructions aggravates any other breach (College 4.76).
- Fitness for Duty (fit "when on duty or presenting themselves for duty"): the smallest category at 90 allegations. It does not cover off-duty drinking as such, but turning up unfit does.
- Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct ("report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues"): 265 allegations, 35% of them recordable conduct matters. Failure to raise concerns is an aggravating factor (College 4.76), and Home Office guidance says all persons serving with the police are under a duty "to not remain silent" (3.1).
The full text of all ten standards, with the Code of Ethics behind them, is on the Standards of Professional Behaviour explained.
Category against typical outcome tendency
This table is a tendency drawn from the published statistics and the College of Policing guidance. It is not a rule and not a prediction. Panels must decide each case on its own facts, and the Home Office does not publish dismissal rates by category.
| Conduct | Standard usually engaged | What the guidance says | Tendency (statistics and guidance) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational dishonesty, corruption, obstruction of justice | Honesty and Integrity | Dismissal 'almost inevitable' where proven; exceptions very small in number and must be identified (College, chapter 5) | Dismissal is the expected outcome where gross misconduct is found |
| Abuse of position for a sexual purpose or an improper emotional relationship | Honesty and Integrity; Authority, Respect and Courtesy | A form of serious corruption; particularly serious with a vulnerable person (College 4.44, 4.50) | Strong tendency towards gross misconduct and dismissal |
| Sexual assault, sexual harassment, violence against women and girls | Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy | VAWG on or off duty 'will always have a high degree of culpability' and a likely severe outcome (College 4.62) | Highest case to answer rate (53%); strong tendency towards gross misconduct |
| Discrimination on a protected characteristic | Equality and Diversity | 'Never acceptable and always serious'; deliberate discrimination particularly serious (College 4.54, 4.57) | 90% of case to answer allegations referred to proceedings; outcome depends on deliberateness, harm and context |
| Misuse of police systems or disclosure of information | Confidentiality; Honesty and Integrity | Access without a policing purpose 'may merit dismissal in serious cases'; accidental access will not (College 4.36) | Wide range: from learning or warnings for genuine error to dismissal for onward disclosure, malice or gain |
| Criminal conviction or caution (any offence) | Discreditable Conduct | Dishonesty, sexual and violent offences 'likely to terminate an officer's career' (College 4.20) | Indictable-only conviction is gross misconduct by definition (from 28 May 2025); others judged on facts |
| Excessive or unnecessary force | Use of Force | Assessed in context; decisions in fast, dangerous situations are judged on what was known at the time (College 4.7, 4.81) | Use of force sub-category: 20% case to answer (our calculation); outcomes vary widely |
| Bullying, harassment, rudeness, unprofessional attitude | Authority, Respect and Courtesy | Persistence, vulnerability, number of people affected and position of authority raise seriousness (College 4.41) | Often misconduct or learning; sustained bullying or harassment can be gross misconduct |
| Neglect of duty, poor decisions, service failures | Duties and Responsibilities | Officers have wide discretion to prioritise (Home Office 2.16); low culpability can still cause serious harm (College 4.6) | Among the lowest referral rates (72%); 51% of no case to answer allegations went to learning |
| Failing to follow orders, policy or a lawful instruction | Orders and Instructions | Significant deviation from instructions is an aggravating factor (College 4.76) | 897 allegations; no outcome figure published; seriousness depends on the instruction, the harm and any other breach |
| Unfit for duty (for example through alcohol) | Fitness for Duty | Standard applies on duty or presenting for duty | Smallest category: 90 allegations in conduct and recordable matters |
| Failing to challenge or report colleagues | Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct | Failure to raise concerns is an aggravating factor (College 4.76) | 265 allegations, 35% of them recordable conduct matters; no outcome figure published |
Whatever the category, the same aggravating factors push towards dismissal: premeditation or targeting, malign intent such as sexual gratification or financial gain, abuse of trust or powers, concealment or blaming others, repetition, a vulnerable victim, multiple victims, discrimination, leadership responsibility and multiple proven breaches. And the same mitigating factors pull the other way: a single brief episode, limited involvement, provocation in the heat of the moment, acting in good faith, ill health or stress affecting your judgement, being out of your depth without training or supervision, early admissions, early action to reduce harm and genuine remorse and insight (College 4.76 and 4.81). For old conduct, panels use the standards of the time, not today's (4.82).
How criminal convictions feed into misconduct
- Indictable-only convictions. For allegations that came to attention from 28 May 2025, conduct resulting in a conviction for an offence triable only on indictment is "taken to constitute" gross misconduct (regulation 2(1)). The panel still decides the outcome, but the presumption of dismissal then applies.
- Other convictions and cautions. The panel cannot question the conviction or sentence but can form its own view of how grave the offending was (College 4.19). Offences of dishonesty, sexual offences, including possession of indecent images of children, and violent crime are "particularly serious and likely to terminate an officer's career" (4.20).
- Non-recordable and minor offences count. An offence need not be recordable to be serious; the guidance gives unlawfully obtaining personal data and driving without insurance as examples of non-recordable offences. An undisputed penalty notice for disorder is treated as a conviction for the purposes of the guidance (4.24 and footnotes).
- No conviction, or an acquittal. If the proven conduct is criminal in nature, the panel can take that into account even without a conviction (4.23). After an acquittal, proceedings may still be brought because the purpose and the standard of proof are different; the force must consider whether the allegation is in substance the same, whether the acquittal was on the merits and whether there is significant further evidence (Home Office 7.88 to 7.92).
- Timing. Misconduct proceedings cannot take place while the force considers they would prejudice criminal proceedings (regulation 10(3)); it must then decide how to proceed once that risk ends.
In 2024/25, 189 officers faced 323 criminal court charges; sexual offences were 26% of charges. Of 168 officers whose outcome was known, 113 (67%) were found or pleaded guilty and 36 (21%) were found not guilty (Home Office, chapter 6).
Is poor performance misconduct? No: it is a different procedure
The College of Policing is explicit: do not use the misconduct procedures "as a means of dealing with unsatisfactory performance" (paragraph 2.10). The Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 deal with whether you can do the job; the Conduct Regulations deal with whether you breached the standards. A severity assessment can send a matter to the performance procedure instead of a misconduct investigation (regulation 14(2)(b)), and so can the case to answer decision (regulation 23(5)(b)). The two can overlap in one set of facts: a data error made in good faith is, in the College's words, possibly better addressed under the performance regime (4.39).
| Gross misconduct | Unsatisfactory performance or attendance | Gross incompetence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question asked | Did your conduct breach the Standards of Professional Behaviour? | Can you do the job to a satisfactory standard? | Can you do the job at all, to the extent that dismissal is justified? |
| Definition | Breach so serious as to justify disciplinary action (misconduct) or dismissal (gross misconduct), Conduct Regulations reg 2(1) | Inability or failure to perform the duties of the role or rank to a satisfactory standard (Performance Regulations reg 4) | Serious inability or serious failure to perform the duties of the rank or role, ignoring attendance, to the extent dismissal would be justified (reg 4) |
| Rules | Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 | Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 | Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 |
| Lower route | Practice requiring improvement: reflective practice review process | First stage meeting and written improvement notice | Not applicable: can go straight to a second stage panel |
| Most serious outcome | Dismissal without notice | Dismissal with notice | Dismissal |
| Barred list | Yes; publication normally for 5 years | Yes; removed automatically after 12 months | Yes; can apply for removal after 3 years |
Since 28 May 2025 the performance procedure has two stages, not three, for matters that came to attention from that date. The detail is in gross incompetence and unsatisfactory performance explained.
Conduct that surprises officers
These come up again and again because they feel private, minor or someone else's problem. Each point below is taken from the regulations or official guidance, not from any case.
- Private group chats are not private for this purpose. Home Office guidance says content shared with colleagues by social media, email, text or encrypted messaging, "even in an off-duty or private capacity", is shared with workplace colleagues and is "potentially reportable". The suggested test is whether it would be appropriate in the workplace (paragraph 2.20).
- Anonymous accounts are still covered. Particular care applies to private online behaviour "even where they are not immediately identifiable" as an officer; the ultimate test is whether it breaches the standards and discredits the police as a whole (2.19).
- Showing your warrant card puts you on duty. Producing it, or saying you are a police officer, during a private dispute means you are treated as exercising your authority (2.21).
- Being in the group is not neutral. The Challenging and Reporting standard requires you to report, challenge or take action against colleagues' conduct. Staying silent about what you saw can itself be an allegation.
- Curiosity checks on police systems. Looking someone up "out of curiosity, rather than for a legitimate policing purpose" is listed by the IOPC as misuse, and the College says curiosity is not an acceptable reason (4.35).
- Not reporting your own arrest, charge, court conditions or penalty notice. The duty to report is part of the Discreditable Conduct standard itself.
- Associations and changes of circumstance. The College's vetting APP says vetting holders must report changes such as new associations with anyone involved in criminal activity, changes in notifiable associations, being the subject of a criminal investigation and significant financial changes, and that "failing to disclose relevant information may result in a referral for misconduct" (3.8.4, 3.8.6). See social media and off-duty conduct.
- Off-duty paperwork. A dishonest statement in a mortgage, loan or tax document is at "the more serious end" of off-duty dishonesty (College 4.32).
- Second jobs. Once a business interest has been refused and any appeal has failed, the decision is treated as a lawful order (Police Regulations 2003, regulation 7(1)), so carrying on regardless risks a misconduct allegation. The regulation's cross-reference to the conduct rules is out of date; see what we could not verify, below.
- A false allegation against a colleague. A deliberately false allegation is never a protected disclosure and "may be assessed as amounting to gross misconduct" (Home Office 3.21).
- Resigning does not stop it. Gross misconduct proceedings can continue after you leave, and in 2024/25 there were 389 findings that a former officer would have been dismissed.
If an officer is dismissed for gross misconduct
- Immediate effect. Dismissal without notice takes effect from the date it is notified to you (regulation 42(4)), so pay stops from then. There is no dismissal with notice under the Conduct Regulations.
- Barred list. The force must report you to the College of Policing within 5 working days, the College must include you on the police barred list, and conduct dismissals are normally published for 5 years. From 21 September 2026 no law enforcement employer may employ or appoint a barred person (Crime and Policing Act 2026, section 205). See the police barred list explained.
- Pension. Dismissal does not in itself remove pension you have built up. Forfeiture needs a qualifying criminal conviction (in the 2015 scheme, regulation 211 of the Police Pensions Regulations 2015). See what happens to my police pension if dismissed. To see your own figures under each outcome, use the Police Pension Exit Report.
- Appeal. After a hearing or accelerated hearing you can appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal, giving notice within 10 working days of receiving the written decision. In 2024/25, 6 of 28 appeals heard were upheld. See the appeal process and tribunal decisions analysis.
- If you are not dismissed. For proceedings concluded from 13 July 2026, the vetting authority must assess whether you may no longer be suitable to hold vetting clearance (Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025, regulation 5A(3)). See failing vetting as a serving officer.
Representation matters at every stage. See Federation representation and legal support and solicitors and legal cover. If you are thinking about your options for leaving, see leaving the police.
Common myths
Questions to ask your representative
General information only. Your representative can apply these to your case:
- What did the severity assessment say, which standards are alleged, and could the assessment still be revised?
- When did the allegation first come to the attention of the force or the IOPC, and does the 28 May 2025 dismissal rule apply to it?
- For a use of force allegation, which version of the Use of Force standard applies, given the 30 June 2026 change?
- Which of the College of Policing's aggravating and mitigating factors are likely to be argued, and what evidence supports the mitigating ones?
- What mitigation should be disclosed now, so it is not given less weight for being raised late (regulation 42(14)(d))?
- Is there an argument that this is a performance or reflective practice matter rather than misconduct?
- If there are linked criminal proceedings, how will timing work, and what happens if I am acquitted?
- If gross misconduct is found, what would we argue are exceptional circumstances, and what are my appeal grounds and deadline?
Facing a gross misconduct allegation is stressful. Confidential support is listed in the police mental health support directory.
What we could not verify
- Dismissal rates by category. The Home Office publishes case to answer and referral rates by IOPC category, but not outcomes at proceedings by category. We have not estimated them.
- Outcomes since 28 May 2025. No official statistics yet cover cases decided under the dismissal rule. The year ending 31 March 2026 release had not been published when we checked.
- What counts as "exceptional circumstances". The regulations do not define it and we found no official guidance defining it.
- A newer College of Policing outcomes guidance. We used the 2022 edition. We found no newer edition addressing the 2025 rule or the 2026 Use of Force wording.
- Updated Home Office statutory guidance. The version on gov.uk is still version 1.0 from February 2020; it predates the 2025 and 2026 changes, and its Use of Force wording is the old one.
- Business interests and the 2020 regulations. Regulation 7(1) of the Police Regulations 2003 still refers to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 when saying a failure to abide by a refused business interest is treated as a case to answer for gross misconduct. We could not confirm how forces apply that cross-reference under the 2020 regulations, so we have only said the decision is a lawful order.
- Sub-category rates. The use of force (20%) and use of police systems (42%) case to answer rates are our own calculations from the Home Office open data table, not figures the Home Office quotes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the definition of gross misconduct in the police?
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal (Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, regulation 2(1)). For allegations that came to attention from 28 May 2025, conduct that has resulted in a conviction for an indictable-only offence (one triable only in the Crown Court) is automatically taken to be gross misconduct. Misconduct is a breach so serious as to justify disciplinary action, but not dismissal.
What counts as police misconduct?
A breach of one of the ten Standards of Professional Behaviour in Schedule 2 to the Conduct Regulations that is serious enough to justify disciplinary action. Not every shortfall qualifies: conduct below that threshold that still falls short of what the public and the service expect is 'practice requiring improvement', dealt with through the non-disciplinary reflective practice review process (regulations 2(7) and 14(4)).
What are examples of police gross misconduct?
The College of Policing's outcomes guidance treats as especially serious: criminal convictions or cautions, operational dishonesty or corruption, misuse of police systems and data, violence, intimidation or sexual impropriety, abuse of a position of trust (including abuse of position for a sexual purpose), misconduct towards a vulnerable person, discrimination and violence against women and girls. Whether a particular case is gross misconduct depends on its facts, assessed by culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors.
Is a police officer always sacked for gross misconduct?
Not always, but it is the expected outcome. For allegations that came to attention from 28 May 2025, a panel that finds gross misconduct must dismiss without notice unless it is satisfied that exceptional circumstances justify a final written warning or reduction in rank (regulations 42(3)(b) and 62(1)). In cases finalised in the year to 31 March 2025, under the older rule, 88% of officers found to have committed gross misconduct were dismissed.
What is the most common type of police misconduct allegation?
Discreditable conduct. In the Home Office figures for the year ending 31 March 2025 it was 31% of the 15,843 misconduct allegations against officers finalised in England and Wales, and 35% of those allegations had a case to answer. Discreditable conduct covers behaviour that discredits the service on or off duty, including criminal offences and arrests.
Which kinds of allegation most often reach a misconduct hearing or meeting?
Of allegations with a case to answer in 2024/25, the Home Office reports that 92% of 'use of police vehicles' allegations, 90% of 'discriminatory behaviour' and 85% of 'sexual conduct' allegations were referred to proceedings, against 81% overall. Sexual conduct allegations also had the highest case to answer rate, at 53%. The Home Office does not publish dismissal rates by category.
Is poor performance police misconduct?
No. Unsatisfactory performance or attendance, and gross incompetence, are dealt with under the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020, which look at ability rather than a breach of the standards. The College of Policing says the misconduct procedures must not be used to deal with unsatisfactory performance. A severity assessment can send a matter to the performance procedure instead of a misconduct investigation (regulation 14(2)(b)).
Does a criminal conviction mean automatic dismissal from the police?
No conviction leads to automatic dismissal. A conviction for an indictable-only offence is treated as gross misconduct (for allegations from 28 May 2025), which then makes dismissal the expected outcome unless there are exceptional circumstances. Other convictions are assessed on their facts: the College of Policing says dishonesty, sexual and violent offences are particularly serious and likely to end a career, and a minor offence can still be grave in a policing context.
Can an acquitted officer still face gross misconduct proceedings?
Yes. Home Office guidance says misconduct proceedings serve a different purpose and use a lower standard of proof (the balance of probabilities), so they can still be appropriate after an acquittal. The force must consider factors such as whether the allegation is in substance the same, whether the acquittal was on the merits, and whether significant further evidence is available (paragraphs 7.88 to 7.92).
Can off-duty behaviour or private messages be gross misconduct?
Yes. The Discreditable Conduct standard applies on or off duty, and Home Office guidance says all forms of disciplinary action are available for off-duty conduct. It also says messages shared with colleagues by social media, text or encrypted apps, even in a private capacity, are potentially reportable, and that the test for off-duty conduct is whether it discredits the police service as a whole.
What happens after a police officer is dismissed for gross misconduct?
Dismissal without notice takes effect when it is notified. The force must report you to the College of Policing within 5 working days for the police barred list, and conduct dismissals are normally published for 5 years. Accrued pension is kept unless a separate forfeiture follows a qualifying criminal conviction. You can appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal within 10 working days of receiving the written decision.
What does 'exceptional circumstances' mean for gross misconduct?
The regulations do not define it, and we found no official guidance that does. It is a decision for the panel, which must give its reasons in its report if it does not dismiss (regulation 43). The College of Policing's operational dishonesty guidance, which predates the 2025 rule, already required panels to identify the features that made a case exceptional.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 3 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/4), revised text, legislation.gov.uk — definitions of misconduct, gross misconduct, practice requiring improvement and indictable-only offence (regs 2 and 2A), severity assessment (reg 14), investigator's report (reg 21), case to answer and referral (reg 23), standard of proof (regs 41(16), 61(16)), outcomes (regs 42, 62), special conditions (reg 49), criminal proceedings (reg 10), Schedule 2 standards (accessed 3 October 2026)
- The Police (Conduct, Performance and Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/558) — dismissal without notice unless exceptional circumstances; indictable-only convictions; transitional rule for allegations that came to attention before 28 May 2025 (reg 64) (accessed 3 October 2026)
- The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/597) — new Use of Force standard from 30 June 2026 and its transitional rule (reg 3) (accessed 3 October 2026)
- The Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/3), regulation 4, legislation.gov.uk — definitions of unsatisfactory performance or attendance and gross incompetence (accessed 3 October 2026)
- College of Policing: Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings (2022 edition, PDF) — purpose of proceedings (2.3), performance not misconduct (2.10), seriousness (4.1 to 4.16), convictions (4.17 to 4.25), operational dishonesty (4.26 to 4.33, chapter 5), data misuse (4.34 to 4.39), violence, intimidation and sexual impropriety (4.40 to 4.43), abuse of trust (4.44 to 4.48), vulnerability (4.49 to 4.53), discrimination (4.54 to 4.59), VAWG (4.60 to 4.62), harm (4.63 to 4.74), aggravating and mitigating factors (4.75 to 4.82), personal mitigation (chapter 6) (accessed 3 October 2026)
- Home Office: Conduct, Efficiency and Effectiveness, Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Integrity in Policing (version 1.0, February 2020, PDF) — threshold for misconduct (2.7, 2.13, 2.14), discredit and convictions (2.15), neglect of duty (2.16), off-duty and online conduct (2.17 to 2.23), duty to cooperate (2.24, 2.25), duty to report and false allegations (3.1, 3.21), proceedings after acquittal (7.88 to 7.93), reduction in rank (11.133 to 11.143) (accessed 3 October 2026)
- Home Office: Police misconduct, England and Wales: year ending 31 March 2025 (Official Statistics in Development, published 22 January 2026) — allegations by IOPC category, case to answer and referral rates, findings and outcomes (chapters 3 and 4), criminal proceedings (chapter 6); the latest edition in the Home Office collection when we checked (accessed 3 October 2026)
- Home Office: Police misconduct, year ending 31 March 2025, data tables (ODS) — tables CM3 and RC3 (allegations by standard breached), MP3, MP4 and MP5 (findings and outcomes, including 'would have been dismissed') (accessed 3 October 2026)
- Home Office: Police misconduct open data tables, allegations by type (ODS, January 2026) — source for the category rates we calculated, including the use of force and use of police systems sub-categories (accessed 3 October 2026)
- IOPC: Guidance on capturing data about police complaints (September 2023, PDF), Appendix A — definitions of the allegation categories and sub-categories the Home Office uses (accessed 3 October 2026)
- College of Policing: Vetting authorised professional practice (May 2025, PDF) — changes of circumstance to report, including notifiable associations (3.8.4), and failure to disclose leading to a misconduct referral (3.8.6) (accessed 3 October 2026)
- The Police Regulations 2003, regulation 7, legislation.gov.uk — refused business interest decision treated as a lawful order (accessed 3 October 2026)
- Police Act 1996, Part 4A, and the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017 — reporting dismissals for the barred list and publication (accessed 3 October 2026)
- The Police Pensions Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/445), regulation 211 — pension forfeiture needs a qualifying conviction, not a misconduct finding (accessed 3 October 2026)
- The Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2020 (SI 2020/1) — appeal within 10 working days (rule 9) (accessed 3 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
Related rights, pay and welfare
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent reference site. It is not a law firm or a representative body, and this page is general information, not legal advice. Conduct, performance and complaints procedures are set by regulations, statutory guidance and your force's own policies, all of which are amended from time to time, and the outcome of any case turns on its facts. If you are under investigation or facing proceedings, speak to your Police Federation or staff association representative or a solicitor about your own case. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 3 October 2026.