MOD Police conduct and performance rules change 29 Dec

If you study policing or you work in the service, here’s the update you need. The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) disciplinary and performance rules are being amended by S.I. 2025/1263. The instrument was made on 1 December 2025, laid before Parliament on 4 December 2025, and comes into force on 29 December 2025. It applies across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and-importantly-was issued free of charge because it corrects defects in the 2020 framework. The source text is published on legislation.gov.uk.

Why now? The Ministry of Defence is aligning the MDP’s discipline system with changes already made for territorial police forces in England and Wales under S.I. 2025/558. That means clearer outcomes, faster routes to hearings when the public interest demands it, and simpler performance management for supervisors and officers. For learners: think of this as a tune‑up to make the MDP rules match the wider policing standards while fixing drafting errors from 2020.

Who is covered? Both serving MDP officers and former MDP officers. The regulations also tidy up language so that misconduct cases can be run by a “person or panel”, and they clarify who counts as a “senior officer” by including people required to perform senior duties even if their substantive rank is different. If you’ve left the MDP, you are still in scope for certain proceedings that can affect whether you may work as a constable in future.

The first big change is about what counts as gross misconduct. A conviction for an indictable‑only offence automatically amounts to gross misconduct. In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, “indictable‑only” means an offence that, for an adult, can only be tried on indictment in the Crown Court. In Scotland, it means an offence triable only on indictment. You don’t need to memorise every example; the point is that a serious criminal conviction now fixes the disciplinary label without argument.

Outcomes are firmer and more predictable. If a hearing finds misconduct or gross misconduct, disciplinary action must be imposed. If the case does not reach either threshold, the chair or panel must either direct a reflective practice review or take no further action. Where gross misconduct is proven, the default outcome is dismissal without notice. Only in exceptional circumstances can a panel issue a final written warning or reduce rank instead. This is designed to set clear expectations for both the public and officers.

How notices and deadlines work also changes in a very practical way. The MDP can now serve formal notices by email as well as in person or by agreed methods. A message sent on a working day before 4.30 p.m. is treated as served that day; otherwise, service is the next working day. Post still counts, but service is deemed on the second working day after posting. For you, that means checking official email matters-and keeping your contact details current matters even more.

There is a sharper route to accelerated misconduct hearings. Once the investigator’s report is in, the relevant authority can decide whether the “special conditions” are met: enough written evidence to establish gross misconduct on the balance of probabilities, and a public‑interest need for the officer to leave without delay. If those conditions are met, the case can be sent to an accelerated hearing. This route is designed for serious, well‑evidenced cases where speed protects trust and safety.

If you are a serving officer, the process flow is easier to picture. An investigator reports. The relevant authority decides if there’s a case to answer and, if so, whether to send you to a misconduct hearing or-if the evidence and public interest warrant it-an accelerated hearing. Findings lead to required outcomes, with reflective practice available where conduct concerns fall short of misconduct. Throughout, references to a “person or panel” make it clear who can run the proceedings.

If you are a former officer, there’s now a presumption that your case goes to an accelerated misconduct hearing unless you opt for, or the authority requires, a full misconduct hearing. The focus is forward‑looking: where gross misconduct is established, the purpose is to prevent future employment or appointment as a constable. You can still ask to switch to a full hearing, but you’ll need to show why that could not be requested earlier and why it should happen now.

Performance management gets simpler for line managers and fairer for officers. The three‑stage process is reduced to two stages. An “appeal manager” role replaces the old “second line manager” model for certain appeals, ensuring a decision‑maker senior to your line manager reviews outcomes. Written improvement notices come with a default improvement period of three months, extendable up to 12 months where justified. Notices and documents can be served by email with the same clear time‑rules used in conduct cases.

Appeals remain, but with tidy refinements. The Police Appeals Tribunal framework is updated to reflect the two‑stage performance system and to allow digital service of documents on appellants, with the same deemed‑service timings. In Scotland, eligibility for the tribunal chair is updated in light of the move to the Scottish Tribunals system, ensuring legally qualified members can chair appeal panels. None of these changes remove your right to appeal; they clarify who can sit and how papers move.

There are transitional rules to keep cases fair. If a complaint or performance issue was already being handled under the pre‑existing regime, it generally stays under that regime. Where the Independent Office for Police Conduct directs a re‑investigation or applies the “old cases” powers, the new rules can be triggered. And if, on or after 29 December 2025, you receive fresh notice of referral to misconduct proceedings or an accelerated hearing, the amended rules will apply. In short: ongoing cases won’t be bounced between systems, but new referrals after the start date will use the new structure.

For your notes and classroom discussion, a few key terms help. “Balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in disciplinary hearings: more likely than not. “Reflective practice review process” is a learning‑focused route for issues that don’t meet the misconduct threshold. “Public interest” here is about confidence and safety, not media interest. And “indictable‑only offence” is a legal category that signals the highest seriousness-and now, automatically, gross misconduct in disciplinary terms.