As The World Snooker Championship Is In...
Music3 mins ago
This Was Recently Trumpeted As Accepted Practice
https:/
Ms Abbot did not agree with this but with great fanfare this new initiative was trotted out to reduce moped crime. Already there have been positive results with about 50% reduction.
No wonder Police Officers are leaving their respective forces in droves. The morale is already rock bottom.
Ms Abbot did not agree with this but with great fanfare this new initiative was trotted out to reduce moped crime. Already there have been positive results with about 50% reduction.
No wonder Police Officers are leaving their respective forces in droves. The morale is already rock bottom.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by retrocop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
RETRO (or one of our resident legal experts) may be able to help me on this.
In a BBC piece, https:/
'The legal test, known as the 'case to answer' test, is whether a disciplinary panel could, on the basis of the evidence available, make a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
It is a lower threshold than the 'balance of probabilities' test applied by a disciplinary panel and lower than the 'realistic prospect of conviction' test used by the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether to bring criminal proceedings.
The 'case to answer' test is enshrined in legislation and the IOPC said it would be "unlawful" for them to ignore or raise the threshold upheld by the High Court.
"We know the case to answer test is low but it has been repeatedly tested through judicial reviews and found to be appropriate," a spokeswoman said.
The Home Office said it was "inevitable" there'd be a 'case to answer' against some officers who were later cleared of misconduct but added that it was implementing reforms to ensure a "consistent" approach to the way the test was applied.''
However, the official guidance says,
"11.31 The investigator should indicate that in their opinion there is a case to answer where there is sufficient evidence, upon which a reasonable misconduct meeting or hearing could, on the balance of probabilities make a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct."
Now, I may be missing the nuances here but that appears to contradict the IOPC spokeswoman.
In a BBC piece, https:/
'The legal test, known as the 'case to answer' test, is whether a disciplinary panel could, on the basis of the evidence available, make a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.
It is a lower threshold than the 'balance of probabilities' test applied by a disciplinary panel and lower than the 'realistic prospect of conviction' test used by the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether to bring criminal proceedings.
The 'case to answer' test is enshrined in legislation and the IOPC said it would be "unlawful" for them to ignore or raise the threshold upheld by the High Court.
"We know the case to answer test is low but it has been repeatedly tested through judicial reviews and found to be appropriate," a spokeswoman said.
The Home Office said it was "inevitable" there'd be a 'case to answer' against some officers who were later cleared of misconduct but added that it was implementing reforms to ensure a "consistent" approach to the way the test was applied.''
However, the official guidance says,
"11.31 The investigator should indicate that in their opinion there is a case to answer where there is sufficient evidence, upon which a reasonable misconduct meeting or hearing could, on the balance of probabilities make a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct."
Now, I may be missing the nuances here but that appears to contradict the IOPC spokeswoman.
Why the police should run the little $hips over
https:/
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.