Skip to content

Misconduct Threshold Reset: Honest Belief Returns for Use-of-Force

James Jeram

Introduction

A legal shift with practical consequences is underway. The government plans to return the test used in police misconduct cases involving use of force to the criminal law test, centring assessments on whether an officer honestly believed force was necessary at the time. The change follows an independent rapid review and comes after a 2023 Supreme Court ruling confirmed the civil law test for disciplinary proceedings. Ministers say the move aims to rebuild clarity and confidence around split-second decisions while keeping safeguards in place. Official statistics underline the context, with hundreds of thousands of recorded use-of-force reports across England and Wales each year. The proposal sits within a wider accountability programme that includes quicker charging decisions after police use of force and interim anonymity for firearms officers up to conviction. Together, these reforms will reshape internal processes, expectations and public messaging.

 

What is changing, and why now

The Home Office intends to amend the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 so that, in misconduct cases involving use of force, the criminal law test is applied. In practical terms, this means decision-makers focus on whether the officer had an honestly held belief that force was necessary in the circumstances as perceived at the time, while retaining the requirement that any force be necessary, proportionate and reasonable. The government has set out the intent and rationale in a public statement and will consult the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales before laying regulations (GOV.UK announcement).

The change answers concerns raised by the independent rapid review led by Sir Adrian Fulford and Tim Godwin. The reviewers concluded that the civil test, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2023, introduced confusion and dented morale by diverging from the criminal standard used elsewhere in the system. The government has accepted the recommendation to legislate, with the detailed analysis available in the published materials (rapid review).

 

Civil test versus criminal test: a short explainer

Under the civil test (the current position for misconduct), panels assess force using an objective reasonableness approach derived from the civil law of self-defence. The Supreme Court’s decision in W80 confirmed that approach for disciplinary proceedings, creating a difference between misconduct and criminal proceedings (W80 judgment). By contrast, the criminal test asks whether the officer honestly believed the use of force was necessary in the circumstances as perceived, even if that belief later proves mistaken, with reasonableness still relevant to evidential weight and proportionality. The planned amendment would align misconduct decision-making with the criminal test, restoring consistency with the standard used by the criminal courts when they consider self-defence.

 

The scale of use-of-force decisions

Recorded demand illustrates how frequently these judgments arise. In the year ending March 2024 there were 747,396 use-of-force reports, documenting 1,062,633 individual tactics across England and Wales (use-of-force statistics). These data points frame everyday practice and the volume of assessments that Professional Standards and panels must review.

A much smaller, specialist subset of incidents involves armed policing. In the year to 31 March 2025 there were 17,249 firearms operations, of which only 4 involved police discharging firearms at persons (0.02% of operations) (firearms statistics). The rarity of lethal force underscores the need for a clear, trusted oversight framework in the highest-risk contexts, where seconds matter and evidence is scrutinised intensely.

Public confidence is shaped not only by numbers on force but also by independent oversight and the most serious outcomes. In 2024/25, the Independent Office for Police Conduct recorded 17 deaths in or following police custody and 60 apparent suicides within two days of release (IOPC annual deaths report). These figures are not a direct measure of use-of-force misconduct, yet they influence expectations about transparency, timeliness and candour across the system.

 

Where this sits in the wider reform package

The announcement is not a standalone fix. It forms part of a broader accountability programme designed to be both fair to officers and credible with the public. Measures being progressed include interim anonymity for firearms officers up to conviction and steps to speed up charging decisions following police use of force (GOV.UK announcement). The package sits alongside earlier changes to dismissal frameworks and appeals, aiming to reduce delays, align thresholds and give a clearer line of sight from incident to outcome.

Forces should expect supporting guidance to ensure consistent application once regulations are laid and in force. The period between announcement, consultation and commencement is the opportunity to ready local policies, templates and communications so that the shift to an honest-belief analysis is understood and applied predictably.

 

Implementation signals to watch

Consultation and drafting

The immediate next step is consultation with the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales before amending the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Monitoring the consultation documents and transitional provisions will help confirm commencement dates and any guidance to panels (rapid review).

Direction and panel guidance

Once enacted, panels and legally qualified chairs will need succinct direction on applying the honest-belief standard within the existing Standards of Professional Behaviour. Consistency of directions, and clear separation from other non-force misconduct tests, will be essential to avoid mixed thresholds within the same proceeding.

Case building and evidential focus

Investigations will continue to assess necessity, proportionality and reasonableness. The shift refocuses evidence collection on contemporaneous decision-making: what was perceived, recorded and articulated at the time. Decision logs, body-worn video narration and tactical rationale remain pivotal to understanding the belief honestly held at the moment force was used.

Interlocks with IOPC and CPS decisions

In parallel, proposals to improve the speed and alignment of criminal justice decisions following police use of force are intended to reduce divergence between criminal and disciplinary pathways. While distinct from misconduct, these changes should help streamline timelines where force is used and reduce uncertainty about the standard being applied at each stage.

 

Benefits being sought—and the trade-offs

Proponents argue the reform will rebuild confidence for those required to act quickly, without diluting accountability where standards are breached (GOV.UK announcement). Critics warn that raising the threshold in misconduct may weaken scrutiny or frustrate complainants. Clear communication will be needed to explain that the proposal affects only use-of-force misconduct and that all cases still test necessity, proportionality and reasonableness.

Public confidence will also depend on visible, timely and comprehensible outcomes. Setting expectations about the distinct roles of Professional Standards, the IOPC and the CPS—and the different tests that apply in each forum—can reduce confusion. Where appropriate, publishing anonymised learning points from panel decisions, and maintaining alignment with national guidance, will support consistent practice.

 

Practical implications for forces

Policy and templates

  • Update local notices, assessment templates and “case to answer” frameworks for use-of-force allegations to reflect the honest-belief threshold once it is in force.
  • Ensure internal guidance distinguishes between use-of-force misconduct (subject to the criminal test) and other misconduct categories (unchanged).

Panel directions and training

  • Refresh standard directions, chairing notes and panel aide-memoires to cover the honest-belief analysis, while reiterating the necessity, proportionality and reasonableness requirements.
  • Provide short, scenario-based refreshers so that contemporaneous perception and rationale are properly evaluated.

Evidence capture and recording

  • Re-emphasise contemporaneous recording: decision logs, incident notebooks, and body-worn video commentary explaining perceived threat, purpose and tactical options considered.
  • Align referral packs so they capture what was genuinely known and believed at the time, not only what became apparent later.

Timeliness and communication

  • Track dependencies on CPS decision timelines for criminal matters and prepare clear public-facing messages that explain parallel processes and the different tests that apply.
  • Build consistency into media lines: specify that the reform responds to the rapid review and is subject to consultation before implementation.

Risks, mitigations and metrics

A foreseeable risk is misinterpretation—internally and externally—that the change lowers standards. Mitigation lies in disciplined messaging: the honest-belief test is not a free pass; it simply aligns disciplinary scrutiny with the standard applied by the criminal courts, while retaining necessity, proportionality and reasonableness. Another risk is inconsistent application across panels; variance can be reduced with shared directions, peer review of decisions and post-hearing summaries.

Progress measures might include reduced time from incident to outcome, fewer adjournments driven by legal test disputes, and stable or improved availability in specialist roles. Monitoring patterns in complaints, upheld findings and appeals will help assess whether the reform delivers clarity without compromising accountability. Where learning themes emerge—such as articulation of perception, or proportionality assessments—embedding them in training and guidance will speed organisational improvement.

 

Conclusion

Three milestones matter. First, publication of the consultation and the draft amendments to the Conduct Regulations. Second, the separate public consultation on the standard of proof for unlawful-killing inquests, which will need careful liaison with local coronial stakeholders. Third, any related amendments within wider policing legislation that affect referrals, charging timeliness or anonymity provisions, to keep pathways aligned and reduce avoidable delay.

Explore more analysis and updates under our Policing Performance & Review hub: https://hub.peelsolutions.co.uk/blog/tag/policing-performance-review/

 

Sources:
James Jeram

James Jeram

James Jeram joined Peel Solutions in 2023 to establish and lead its professional services and consultancy division. With over eight years of experience supporting UK law enforcement, central government, and the wider public sector, James brings a wealth of expertise and a deep commitment to driving positive change across these vital industries. His dedication to maintaining strong human connections whilst delivering innovative solutions stems from his extensive experience in the sector and understanding of what truly makes a difference in law enforcement support services.