The Police (Conduct and Vetting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 come into effect today, Monday 13 July, and make changes across the Police Standards Regime. Specifically, the new regulations make amendments to:

• The Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025
• The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020
• The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020
• The Police (Performance) Regulations 2020
• The Police Regulations 2003

The amendments alter the powers of suspension, clarify some vetting regulations and introduce automatic bars to being granted vetting clearance. The broad nature of these changes mean they will impact those making suspension decisions, Vetting Authorities and Appropriate Authorities. It is therefore crucial that forces make individuals in those roles aware of their new duties and obligations. These new duties are outlined in this insight article.

Suspension

The rules around suspension have been amended in both the Conduct and Vetting Regulations. There is now a more limited discretion on when an officer should be suspended, although in practice we expect forces have already been making decisions along these lines.

Regulation 11 of the Conduct Regulations has been changed to introduce a duty to suspend an officer where the effective investigation of the case may be prejudiced without the suspension or where the public interest requires it. In either case, temporary redeployment to alternative duties or an alternative location must first have been considered and determined to be inappropriate.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances approved by the Chief Officer, suspension is now automatic if:

• An officer is arrested for a sexual or domestic abuse-related offence
• No arrest is made for such an offence, but the Appropriate Authority makes a domestic abuse assessment
• An officer is charged with a sexual offence or a domestic abuse-related offence; in that instance, an officer may make representations against a domestic abuse assessment

When an officer is subject to a criminal investigation and the conduct is assessed as Gross Misconduct, the Appropriate Authority must make a suspension decision within three working days and must review the decision within 12 weeks (an increase from the previous four weeks).

Similar changes have been made to the vetting regime. Where the force used to have discretion over the suspension decision, Regulation 13 of the Vetting Regulations has been updated to include a duty to suspend an officer if the withdrawal assessment may be prejudiced or the public interest requires it. Review periods have also been updated from four to 12 weeks.

Vetting

The amendments to the Vetting Regulations clearly set out the vetting process for police candidates, including timescales, conditions to vetting and a list of criminal offences which will automatically bar someone from passing vetting. The list of qualifying criminal conduct has been added to Regulation 10 of the Police Regulations 2003 and includes:

• having received a custodial sentence;
• being a registered sex offender;
• having been cautioned for, or convicted of, a domestic abuse or VAWG offence.

It also requires detailed reasons to be given when a Vetting Authority makes a decision to grant clearance subject to conditions, add or vary a condition, refuse vetting clearance or revoke vetting clearance. 

Another addition is that if a force decides to “deviate on a repeated or prolonged basis” from any vetting Code of Practice issued by the College of Policing or any vetting guidance published by the College of Policing or Secretary of State, then the Vetting Authority must notify the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Forces will need to keep an eye on current guidance to ensure that they are following it and, if they are not, have a sound rationale for deviating from it.

The changes to the Vetting Regulations are subject to transitional provisions that will need to be carefully considered to ensure they are being applied to the appropriate cases.

Conclusion

These amendments make changes across a range of regulatory processes and will impact numerous decision-makers within each force. It will be crucial for those people to be advised of their new duties and trained on what that means for their decision making. Senior officers making suspension decisions must be informed of their curtailed discretion and the lengthened time limits they have for some suspension reviews.

The clarification of the process for vetting police candidates will assist forces in implementing a more consistent approach to vetting new officers. It will be interesting to see if this results in increased standards and public confidence in policing, as intended.

Capsticks’ view

While the amendments have clarified parts of the various regulatory regimes and will assist forces in tackling culture problems, there remain some outstanding issues with both the misconduct and vetting processes.

We await the new Home Office Guidance to support the amendments to the conduct regime, particularly guidance on what amounts to “exceptional circumstances” that rebut the presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct. In the absence of that guidance, forces and panels need to make their own judgments on what may be “exceptional”. If a panel chooses not to dismiss, forces currently only have recourse via a judicial review of that decision; a costly and often prolonged process that could be avoided with clear guidance.

How Capsticks can help

Capsticks advises police forces on all aspects of misconduct proceedings, including severity assessments, disclosure and the preparation and presentation of cases at Accelerated Misconduct Hearings, Misconduct Hearings and at the Police Appeals Tribunal. Our experts also represent clients in judicial review proceedings against panel decisions.

If you would like access to advice and training or need further guidance on police misconduct, vetting or judicial review, please contact Anna Semprini (Partner) or Rebecca Foster (Associate).