Written by A long-serving police inspector with a distinguished record of service found himself at the centre of a gross misconduct hearing. What began as a seemingly straightforward inquiry spiralled into a deeply flawed and contentious process, ultimately leading to his dismissal. At the heart of this case was the involvement of Capsticks, a legal firm notorious for its heavy-handed tactics and its ability to shape the outcome of police misconduct proceedings.
How Police Misconduct Hearings Work
Police misconduct hearings are intended to ensure accountability and integrity within the force. They are convened to examine allegations of wrongdoing against officers and are governed by strict regulations. A panel—typically consisting of an independent legally qualified chair, a senior police officer, and a layperson—hears evidence and determines whether the officer’s conduct constitutes gross misconduct.
Gross misconduct is defined as a breach of professional standards so serious that it justifies dismissal. These hearings are supposed to be fair and transparent, with officers given an opportunity to present their case. However, in practice, external legal teams often wield significant influence over the process. Capsticks, in particular, have built a reputation for not only advising forces but effectively running the show in these hearings, shaping narratives and decisions to their client’s benefit.
A Friendship Misconstrued
The inspector’s troubles began with a professional friendship he formed with a female colleague. In a bid to support her career progression, he advised her on steps she needed to take to qualify for a temporary promotion. This mentorship, however, became the foundation of allegations of sexual harassment, based on text messages exchanged between them.
Initially, the matter involved just two allegations, which were set to be handled internally. However, following advice from Capsticks, the situation escalated dramatically. The allegations were “laddered” into 25 separate counts, creating the appearance of pervasive misconduct.
Capsticks’ Influence
Capsticks’ involvement marked a turning point in the case. The firm is known for its aggressive litigation playbook, which often prioritises securing dismissals over ensuring procedural fairness. In this case, they were accused of cherry-picking evidence, withholding exculpatory material, and using a supplementary statement—one that did not constitute an admission of guilt—as a weapon against the inspector.
Bundles of evidence were poorly prepared and provided late, leaving the inspector and his defence team with minimal time to respond. Even the panel’s chair remarked on the disorganised nature of the material submitted. Witness statements that supported the inspector were suppressed, and Capsticks replaced their initial barrister—who had expressed concerns about the case’s preparation—with one who adopted an aggressive and vindictive approach.
It is widely accepted in professional circles that Capsticks often dominate these hearings, with their legal expertise and strategic manipulation effectively guiding panel decisions. Their ability to control the narrative, suppress evidence, and present cases in a highly selective manner allows them to steer outcomes in their clients’ favour.
A Flawed Hearing
The inspector’s hearing was a prime example of the influence Capsticks can wield. On the day of the hearing, new evidence was introduced, further blindsiding the defence. These last-minute tactics, combined with the selective narrative crafted by Capsticks, created an environment where the panel appeared heavily swayed by the firm’s presentation of the case.
Despite suffering from PTSD and being signed off sick due to the stress of the proceedings, the inspector was ultimately dismissed. The panel concluded that his actions amounted to gross misconduct, but the integrity of their decision was undermined by the procedural flaws and Capsticks’ heavy-handed tactics.
Broader Questions and Hidden Motives
This case raises troubling questions about the fairness of police misconduct hearings and the undue influence external legal representatives can exert. Capsticks, in particular, have developed a reputation for controlling the process, effectively “running the show” to secure dismissals.
The inspector believes there were ulterior motives behind his dismissal. He had reprimanded staff for underperformance shortly before the allegations arose, which he suspects made him a target. Additionally, he pointed to inconsistencies in how other cases were handled. In some instances, officers accused of far more serious misconduct—such as inappropriate sexual relationships—received lesser sanctions or were allowed to remain in their roles. This disparity in treatment casts doubt on the integrity of the process.
The Personal Impact
The fallout from the case has been devastating for the inspector. The stigma of dismissal, coupled with the mental health toll of the proceedings, has left him struggling to rebuild his life. PTSD, financial hardship, and the loss of a career he dedicated years to have all compounded his sense of injustice.
Possible Legal Recourse
Despite the panel’s decision, the inspector may still have avenues for redress. Police misconduct panel decisions can be appealed through the Police Appeals Tribunal, which reviews whether the original hearing was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. He may also consider pursuing a judicial review if procedural irregularities or bias can be demonstrated. Furthermore, the conduct of Capsticks and their representatives could warrant scrutiny by professional oversight bodies to ensure accountability.
A Call for Reform
This case underscores the urgent need for reform in police misconduct hearings. When external legal teams like Capsticks are allowed to dominate proceedings, manipulate narratives, and suppress evidence, the principles of fairness and justice are severely compromised. Without stricter safeguards and greater oversight, these hearings risk becoming a tool for institutional agendas rather than a mechanism for accountability and truth.
Disclaimer:
The content provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the information may not reflect the most current legal developments or apply to specific circumstances. Readers are encouraged to seek independent legal advice from a qualified professional for guidance tailored to their particular situation. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organisation or entity. The author and publisher disclaim all liability for any actions taken or not taken based on the content of this article.