Promotion Boards
& Equality Law
Definitive regulation-based guide to equality considerations in UK police promotion boards, including tie-breaker provisions, reasonable adjustments and lawful positive action.
Executive Summary: Police promotion is a highly regulated process governed by the National Police Promotion Framework (NPPF) and strictly evaluated against competency benchmarks. While Section 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 permit targeted support and tie-breaker measures to address underrepresentation, these must never compromise the merit principle or involve unlawful quotas. Simultaneously, Section 20 mandates anticipatory reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled officers can compete fairly without lowering the required competency threshold.
Snippet Goal: Can Police Promotion Boards Prioritise Certain Officers?
Police promotion boards must assess candidates on merit.
Under the Equality Act 2010, police forces may apply proportionate positive action measures to address documented underrepresentation, including the Section 159 tie-breaker rule where candidates are identically equally qualified. Officers with disabilities are entitled to reasonable adjustments to remove disadvantage, but standards and competency requirements must remain consistent.
Institutional Lens: The "Selection for Appointment" stage is where legal risk is highest. A force must be able to demonstrate that any prioritisation was not an automatic preference but a defensible, proportionate response to a specific imbalance justified via an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA).
The Structural
Gatekeeper
Promotion in UK policing is not a simple administrative selection; it is a multi-stage statutory journey known as the National Police Promotion Framework (NPPF). This framework acts as the structural gatekeeper of leadership, ensuring that those elevated to the ranks of Sergeant and Inspector possess the specific competencies required to manage complex operational risks.
The "board" is the traditional culmination of this process. It is an intense, high-stakes interview environment where candidates are grilled on their application of the Competency and Values Framework (CVF). It is the point where years of operational preparation meet the cold efficiency of objective scoring.
The NPPF provides a rigorous, four-step journey. Step 1 requires candidates to master the legislative and procedural realities of the rank through the national legal exams (NPPF Step One). This is a purely meritocratic filter, ensuring technical baseline competency. Step 2 is the force-level application and shortlisting phase, where candidates must narratively demonstrate their capability. Step 3 is the assessment board itself, where interactive testing occurs. Finally, Step 4 involves a 12-month period of temporary promotion and work-based assessment, where the candidate must prove their performance in the real world before the rank is made substantive.
This four-step model is designed to prevent "lucky" promotions. It ensures that leadership is awarded through a consistent demonstration of skill over time. However, at each stage, the potential for structural bias exists. For instance, if Step 2 evidence requires "extraordinary" projects that are only available to officers in specific units, this may indirectly disadvantage talented officers working in frontline response roles.
The Financial Stake
A promotion to Sergeant typically represents a ~20% increase in basic salary, plus expanded overtime opportunities and pension growth. The financial implications ensure that the process is subjected to fierce individual and collective scrutiny.
Merit Scoring
Every answer is scored (often 1-5). Once the board concludes, these scores are aggregated. The force then "cuts" the list at the number of available vacancies. If you score below the line, you are not promoted.
Because this process determines career mobility, earning potential, and leadership authority, it attracts significant legal scrutiny. If the scoring system is flawed, or if individual assessors exhibit unconscious bias, the entire framework can be challenged via judicial review or at an Employment Tribunal. The legitimacy of the entire command structure rests on the perceived fairness of these boards.
For many officers, the promotion board is the single most stressful event of their career. It requires them to translate their operational reality—often high-octane, messy, and complex—into the structured language of the CVF. Those who succeed are not just those who are good at their jobs, but those who can effectively communicate their decision-making logic under pressure.
Equality Law
& Selection
The management of promotion boards sits at the intersection of several critical sections of the Equality Act 2010. Understanding these boundaries is essential for both candidates and force leadership to ensure the process remains within the letter of the law. This is not merely a compliance exercise; it is a fundamental requirement of public authority legitimacy.
The cornerstone of the process is Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This legally compels all public authorities to have "due regard" to equality when exercising their functions. This is not an optional "tick-box" exercise; it is a substantive legal standard known as the Brown Principles.
Under the Brown Principles, 'due regard' must be exercised with "rigor and an open mind." It is not sufficient for a force to simply state they considered equality; they must show how they considered it. This includes analyzing data, consulting with staff associations (such as the NBPA or the Women’s Network), and assessing whether the proposed promotion criteria significantly handicap any protected group.
Furthermore, the duty is non-delegable. The Chief Officer cannot point to a third-party consultant and blame them for a failure in equality design. The responsibility for the lawful nature of the promotion board remains with the force leadership. The consideration must be exercised at the formative stage of the decision—before the board format is finalized and before candidates are invited to apply.
General Positive Action
Allows forces to take steps to overcome a disadvantage, or to meet the needs of, or encourage participation by, personal with a protected characteristic. In promotion, this usually covers pre-board support.
The Tie-Breaker
Specific to recruitment and promotion. Allows a force to choose an underrepresented candidate only where two candidates are of identically 'equal merit'.
Reasonable Adjustments
A mandatory, anticipatory duty to remove disadvantages faced by people with disabilities. This modifies the process, but not the competency required.
The PSED
The Public Sector Equality Duty. Compels forces to proactively consider equality in the design and governance of their promotion systems.
Legal Distinctions & Objective Justification
Forces must distinguish clearly between positive action (which is optional and subject to the 'proportionate means' test) and reasonable adjustments (which are a mandatory statutory duty).
Furthermore, while indirect discrimination can sometimes be 'objectively justified' by an operational necessity (e.g., needing to test command presence under stress), direct discrimination (treating someone less favorably purely due to their identity) is always unlawful in the promotion context.
Positive Action
Mechanisms
Section 158 of the Equality Act provides the legal architecture for forces to support Black and other minority ethnic officers and other underrepresented groups before they enter the interview room. These interventions are designed to bridge the "preparation gap" that often results from structural disadvantages, such as a lack of access to senior mentors or a lack of exposure to specific high-visibility projects.
Lawful Section 158 support is about capacity building, not preference. It recognizes that if a specific group is statistically underrepresented at the Inspector rank, the force has a legitimate interest in encouraging more candidates from that group to apply and ensuring they are as well-prepared as their peers. This is often referred to as "leveling the starting blocks."
Mock Board Support
Allowing candidates to practice their delivery in front of a neutral panel of senior commanders to desensitize the stress response and refine their structural delivery logic.
Mentoring Schemes
Pairing candidates with successful promotees from diverse backgrounds to navigate the 'unwritten rules' and cultural expectations of the board.
Prep Workshops
Dedicated seminars focused on decoding the semantic language of the CVF and translating messy operational work into board-ready evidence.
Confidence Dev
Targeted coaching to address the 'imposter syndrome' often experienced by groups historically underrepresented in senior leadership roles.
The legality of these schemes rests on their non-exclusive outcome. While the support is targeted, the assessment is not. A force can spend extra resources preparing a specific group, but they cannot give that group the interview questions early or advance them if they score lower than a non-supported candidate. The "wall" at the interview room door must remain absolute.
The "No Automatic" Rule
To remain lawful, these interventions must be voluntary and supplementary. They must not involve providing actual interview questions in advance or granting automatic promotion. Every candidate, regardless of the support they received, must sit the same board and meet the same pass mark. Any breach of this principle transforms positive action into unlawful positive discrimination.
Section 159
Tie-Breaker
Section 159 is the most specific and controversial provision in the Equality Act regarding promotion. It allows an employer to take identity into account only during the final selection for appointment, provided several strict criteria are met.
Criteria for a Lawful Tie-Breaker
Candidates must be of identically equal merit following a full evaluation. You cannot promote a lower-scoring candidate.
The use of the tie-breaker must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (e.g., addressing underrepresentation).
Forces cannot have a blanket policy that 'always' chooses a specific group. It must be a case-by-case consideration.
The reasoning for using Section 159 must be explicitly recorded and defensible in the force EIA.
The "Equally Qualified" Threshold
In many police promotion boards, scores are tracked to several decimal places. If Candidate A scores 72.5% and Candidate B scores 72.4%, they are not of identically equal merit. Candidate A must be promoted. Section 159 can only be invoked in a 'perfect tie' between multiple candidates for a final vacancy.
Disability &
Reasonable Adjustment
Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 establishes a mandatory duty on police forces to provide reasonable adjustments for officers with disabilities during the promotion process. Unlike positive action, this is not an optional choice; it is an anticipatory statutory obligation. This means a force must not wait for an officer to encounter a barrier; they must design their promotion framework to be inclusive from the outset.
The duty comprises three requirements. The first is to address a 'provision, criterion or practice' (PCP) that places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. In promotion, this often relates to the method of assessment—the timed essay, the rapid-fire interview, or the physical requirement to attend a specific location. By adjusting the PCP, the force ensures the officer can compete to their true potential.
The second requirement relates to physical features (e.g., ensuring the interview room is accessible), and the third relates to 'auxiliary aids' (e.g., providing a BSL interpreter or specialized software). The overarching aim is to remove the hurdle, not to lower the height of the jump.
Anticipatory Duty
Forces must proactively design promotion processes that accommodate neurodiversity (e.g., dyslexia, ADHD, autism) and sensory impairments without waiting for an individual request. This is the Archibald principle of proactive inclusivity.
The 'Reasonable' Test
Whether an adjustment is 'reasonable' depends on its effectiveness, the cost to the force, and the operational necessity of the rank requirements.
Common S.20 Adjustments in Boards
Time Extensions
25% extra time for written exams or interview prep (standard for Neurodiversity/Dyslexia).
Executive Support
Providing interview questions in advance (e.g., 60 mins) to assist with information processing.
Sensory Control
Use of noise-canceling headphones in prep or dimming lights for sensory sensitivity.
Neurodiversity & Workforce Merit
Neurodivergent candidates (including those with dyslexia, autism, and ADHD) often face significant structural disadvantages in "rapid-fire" interview environments. Under Section 20, a force may be legally required to modify the delivery mechanism of the board. This is not about being "lenient"; it is about ensuring the candidate's actual competency—which may be exceptional—is not masked by executive functioning or sensory processing barriers. Note: Bypassing the board entirely remains generally unlawful; the adjustment must focus on making the assessment accessible, not absent.
Critical Distinction: Reasonable adjustments remove the disadvantage caused by the assessment method. They do not lower the competency requirement of the rank itself. An officer must still prove they are capable of performing the Sergeant or Inspector role.
Stage Bypass vs
Guaranteed Interview
Skipping a mandatory promotion stage removes the mechanism by which merit is assessed. A Disability Confident "guaranteed interview" does not remove assessment — it guarantees access to assessment. Under UK equality law, the distinction between removing disadvantage and removing competition is legally decisive.
The Core Legal Distinction
In the context of police promotion, the distinction between a lawful adjustment and an unlawful bypass rests on the integrity of the merit test. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 mandates that forces remove barriers to assessment, but it does not permit the removal of the assessment itself where that assessment measures a core competency of the rank.
When an officer is permitted to "skip" a stage—such as the NPPF Step 1 legal exam—the force is effectively granting a promotion without verifying technical baseline competency. This moves the intervention from the realm of reasonable adjustment into the realm of unlawful direct discrimination against those required to pass the stage.
College of Policing Position
"The Act prohibits discrimination... however, in considering whether an accommodation is appropriate, it is important to ensure that the accommodation does not change the standard that the candidate is being measured against, and that the candidate is not provided with an unfair advantage over other candidates." — College of Policing Selection & Assessment Policy
The College of Policing's position is a structural boundary: Adjust the method, do not remove the test. If the standard for a Sergeant is to possess a specific level of legislative knowledge, providing extra time or a braille format is a lawful adjustment of the method. Allowing the candidate to be promoted without demonstrating that knowledge is a removal of the standard itself.
The Nature of a Promotion Stage
Under the NPPF, each stage is a specific competency filter. Skipping a stage creates a "competency void" that cannot be justified under Section 20:
- Step 1: National Exam
Measures legislative and procedural competence. Skipping this leaves the force with no validated measure of the officer's legal authority.
- Step 2: Shortlisting
Measures evidence-based performance against the CVF. Skipping this denies the merit of officers who successfully passed the filter.
- Step 3: Assessment Board
Measures behavioural and leadership reaction under pressure. Skipping this eliminates the core assessment of interactive capability.
Disability Confident – A Different Legal Category
Forces often operate under the Disability Confident scheme, which includes a "guaranteed interview" offer. Many officers mistakenly view this as a form of "stage skipping," but the legal mechanics are fundamentally different.
A guaranteed interview ensures that any disabled candidate who meets the minimum essential criteria for the role will be advanced past the initial application filter. Crucially, it does not:
- × Guarantee Promotion
- × Remove Scoring
- × Remove Pass Marks
- × Remove Competition
Because the guaranteed interview operates at the access stage (ensuring they get into the room) rather than the outcome stage (ensuring they pass the board), it is entirely lawful. It removes the barrier to being considered; it does not grant a preference in being selected.
Turner-Robson v
Thames Valley Police
In 2024, an Employment Tribunal delivered a landmark ruling regarding Thames Valley Police (TVP) and their attempt to speed up promotions for underrepresented groups. The force decided to move certain officers directly to a board, bypassing a full competitive process available to others.
The Tribunal ruled this constituted unlawful direct discrimination. The core takeaway was that while the force’s aim (increasing diversity at senior ranks) was legitimate, the means (bypassing the competitive merit stage) was not proportionate and breached the principle of merit-based selection. it reaffirming that you cannot fix structural imbalance by removing the standard of entry.
NPAA Guidance & The Level Playing Field
The National Police Autism Association (NPAA) provides specific guidance on this distinction. Their position aligns with institutional standards, advocating for accessibility rather than absence:
"Workplace adjustments are provided to help disabled/ND staff achieve their best and to provide a 'level playing field' – they should not be thought of as an unfair advantage." — NPAA Manager's Guide
The goal of neurodiversity adjustments is to allow the candidate to demonstrate their true merit without it being masked by executive functioning or sensory barriers. It does not advocate for the removal of the requirement to be the best person for the job.
The Legal Test: Remove Disadvantage vs Remove Assessment
Lawful Adjustment
- + 25% Extra Prep/Exam Time
- + Providing Questions in Advance
- + Alternative Format (e.g. Oral vs Written)
- + Sensory/Accessible Venue Control
Unlawful Bypass
- × Skipping NPPF Exam Entirely
- × Automatic Advancement to Selection
- × Removing Interview/Board Stage
- × Lowering Pass Benchmarks
Institutional Risk Analysis
Forces that fail to navigate this distinction face a dual-pronged risk. Failing to provide reasonable adjustments (Section 20) leads to disability discrimination claims and a breach of statutory duty. However, providing "adjustments" that cross into bypassing stages (unlawful preference) leads to direct discrimination claims from other officers and a loss of workforce legitimacy.
Institutional stability relies on a neutral, defensible balance: Promotion boards must remove barriers, not remove standards. The law protects equality of opportunity, ensuring that everyone can reach the hurdle; it does not mandate equality of outcome by removing the hurdle.
Lawful vs
Unlawful
SCENARIO 1: Targeted Support
A force runs mandatory pre-board preparation workshops exclusively for ethnic minority candidates to improve their 'board resilience'.
Lawful Section 158 positive action. It addresses underrepresentation without granting a merit-preference.
SCENARIO 2: Tie-Breaker Application
Two candidates score an identical 84.5% in the final board. The force awards the single vacancy to the female candidate as women are underrepresented at that rank.
Lawful. This is the exact intent of the Section 159 tie-breaker rule between candidates of equal merit.
SCENARIO 3: Neurodiversity Adjustment
An officer with dyslexia is provided with 25% extra time and a laptop with spell-check for their Step 2 application writing.
Lawful and mandatory Section 20 adjustment. It removes the disadvantage of slow typing/drafting speed.
SCENARIO 4: Mobility Accomodation
An officer with a knee injury requests their interview take place on the ground floor. The force accommodates this readily.
Lawful and routine S.20 accommodation for physical access.
SCENARIO 5: Automatic Advancement
The force skips the shortlisting stage for all minority candidates, advancing them automatically to the interview board.
Unlawful direct discrimination. It treats candidates differently based on identity alone, bypassing merit.
SCENARIO 6: Lowering the standard
The force lowers the 'pass' score for a specific demographic group to ensure higher representation in the final pool.
Unlawful. You cannot lower competency standards for specific groups. This is positive discrimination.
SCENARIO 7: Neurodiversity
A neurodivergent candidate (e.g., autism or ADHD) is provided with the interview questions 60 minutes before the board as a reasonable adjustment for information processing speed.
Lawful. This is a common S.20 adjustment to remove the disadvantage of 'on-the-spot' processing, provided scoring remains objective.
SCENARIO 8: Stage Skipping
The force allows a neurodivergent candidate to skip the written exam 'Step 1' entirely because they struggle with timed tests.
Unlawful. While a candidate can have extra time or format changes (S.20), they cannot skip mandatory merit-based filters entirely.
Promotion
Disproportionality
Data transparency in police promotion is a fundamental requirement of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). Forces must monitor their promotion pipelines to identify where specific demographics are falling out of the process.
The 'Audit' Trigger
If data consistently shows that Black or minority ethnic officers pass the board at 50% the rate of white officers, this disproportionality acts as a mandatory trigger for an EIA review.
Disproportionality ≠ Bias
Critically, disproportionality in outcomes does not automatically prove individual bias. It may indicate structural barriers (e.g., lack of mentoring or inaccessible venues) that require institutional correction.
Structural
Risk Balance
Risks of Inaction
- • Entrenched leadership imbalance leading to a "frozen" organizational culture.
- • Loss of community trust as tactical and strategic leadership fails to reflect the public.
- • High workforce disengagement among talented officers who perceive structural "glass ceilings".
Risks of Overreach
- • Costly Employment Tribunal claims for positive discrimination (Section 13).
- • Internal workforce division and erosion of the meritocracy principle.
- • Judicial review of force policies resulting in reputational damage and systemic delays.
Institutional stability depends on a neutral, legally defensible balance. Forces must ensure their promotion systems are both intensely competitive for excellence and structurally inclusive for all.
The long-term trajectory of UK policing depends on the legitimacy of its leadership. If promotion boards are seen as opaque, biased, or disconnected from the reality of operational merit, the internal "social contract" of the workforce begins to fray. This is why the integration of equality law into the NPPF is not about "political correctness"—it is about institutional resilience.
A force that promotes the best talent, regardless of identity, while simultaneously ensuring that every talented officer has a fair and accessible pathway to the rank, is a force that will withstand the scrutiny of the 2030s. The EIA is the map for that journey.
In summary, the promotion board remains the most critical selection event in an officer's career. Whether you are a candidate navigating the CVF, a supervisor drafting a recommendation, or a Chief Officer signing off on a new framework, the principles of the Equality Act 2010 must be your baseline. By understanding the distinction between Section 158 support, Section 159 tie-breakers, and Section 20 adjustments, the service can move toward a future where merit and representation are seen not as competitors, but as twin pillars of a professional police service.
Promotion Governance
& Ongoing Analysis
Promotion systems sit at the intersection of merit, equality law and public confidence. We publish independent, regulation-based analysis of promotion frameworks, misconduct data and workforce governance.
Independent Briefing | Technical Tone | No Hype
Promotion Q&A
Can police promotion boards apply positive action?
Yes, police forces can use positive action under Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. This includes targeted mentoring and preparation before the board (S.158) and using protected characteristics as a tie-breaker between equally qualified candidates (S.159). However, quotas and automatic preference are unlawful.
Is the tie-breaker rule common in police promotions?
While statistically rare given the precise scoring of promotion boards, the Section 159 tie-breaker is a recognized legal mechanism. It can only be used when candidates are of identically 'equal merit' following a rigorous assessment process.
Can disability allow an officer to skip a promotion exam?
No. A disability does not exempt an officer from the requirement to demonstrate competency. However, under Section 20, they are entitled to 'reasonable adjustments' (e.g., extra time, alternative formats) to ensure the assessment method itself does not create an unfair disadvantage.
Are promotion quotas legal in the UK?
No. Quotas—reserving a fixed number or percentage of promotion slots for specific groups—are unlawful positive discrimination in the UK. All promotions must remain merit-based.
Can standards be lowered for positive action candidates?
No. Maintaining identical competency standards is a legal requirement for lawful positive action. Interventions focus on helping underrepresented groups reach the standard, not lowering the bar.
What counts as 'equal merit' for a tie-breaker?
'Equal merit' is a high threshold. It requires that after all objective scoring, work-based assessments, and interview metrics are aggregated, two candidates remain indistinguishable in their suitability for the rank.
Are reasonable adjustments mandatory?
Yes. The duty to provide reasonable adjustments under Section 20 of the Equality Act is an absolute statutory duty for employers. Failures can lead to successful Employment Tribunal claims.
Can officers challenge promotion decisions?
Yes. Officers can challenge promotion board outcomes via internal grievance procedures, the Police Federation, or by filing a claim at an Employment Tribunal if they believe the process was biased or discriminatory.
Does the PSED apply to promotion boards?
Yes. Under Section 149 (PSED), forces must have 'due regard' to the need to advance equality of opportunity when designing and executive promotion frameworks.
Can underrepresentation justify a promotion bypass?
No. Underrepresentation allows for targeted support (S.158) or a tie-breaker (S.159), but it never justifies bypassing a mandatory merit-based assessment stage.
Is automatic advancement of minority candidates lawful?
No. Automatically advancing candidates based on protected characteristics without a merit-based assessment of their suitability is unlawful direct discrimination.
Can mentoring be targeted at specific groups?
Yes. Targeted mentoring is a classic example of lawful Section 158 positive action, designed to overcome documented disadvantages or low participation rates in promotion cycles.
Are promotion pass marks fixed nationally?
While the NPPF provides a national framework, individual forces often set their own 'pass' thresholds based on vacancy levels and local operational requirements, provided these are applied consistently.
Is an EIA required for promotion changes?
Yes. Any significant change to a promotion framework—such as a new interview format or eligibility criteria—requires a formal Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) to ensure it is proportionate and lawful.
Does representation alone guarantee promotion?
No. Being from an underrepresented group provides a legal basis for support or a tie-breaker, but the candidate must still independently demonstrate the required competencies in the board.
What is a reasonable adjustment example?
Examples include providing a candidate with dyslexia 25% extra time for a written exam, or offering a remote interview for an officer with a mobility-related disability.
Is discrimination the same as positive action?
No. Discrimination is an unlawful adverse act. Positive action is a set of lawful, proportionate measures taken to assist underrepresented groups in competing on equal terms.
Can promotion criteria be changed mid-process?
Changing criteria mid-process is high-risk. It can lead to claims of unfairness or bias. Any such change would require an urgent EIA and clear communication to all candidates.
Are specialist promotions different?
Promotions to specialist units (e.g., Firearms, Roads Policing) often involve additional technical 'gateway' assessments, but the core equality law requirements remain the same as general promotions.
Can neurodivergent officers skip NPPF exams?
Generally, no. Bypassing a mandatory merit-based assessment is usually considered unlawful as it removes the mechanism for ensuring competency. However, officers are entitled to extensive reasonable adjustments (e.g., extra time, questions in advance) to ensure the assessment process is accessible.
What is a 'Guaranteed Interview' scheme?
Part of the Disability Confident scheme, it guarantees that any disabled candidate who meets the minimum essential criteria for a role will be invited to the interview stage. It guarantees access to the assessment, not the outcome of the assessment itself.
Is skipping a promotion stage ever lawful?
Skipping a stage is only legally defensible if the assessment method itself creates an insurmountable barrier that no adjustment can remove, and where an alternative method can validly measure the exact same underlying competency indicators.
What did the Turner-Robson v Thames Valley Police case establish?
The 2024 tribunal ruled that bypassing competitive merit stages to favor specific groups constitutes unlawful direct discrimination. It reaffirmed that while diversity is a legitimate aim, it must be achieved through proportionate support (Section 158) or tie-breakers (Section 159), not by removing competition.