UK to restore criminal test in police misconduct cases

Here’s the short version: on 24 October 2025 the Home Office said it will restore the criminal law test for judging police use of force in misconduct cases in England and Wales. The aim, ministers say, is clearer guidance for split‑second decisions while keeping public confidence.

What is actually changing? In misconduct proceedings about force, panels will be asked whether the officer had an honest belief that using force was necessary at the time. The Home Office says this will apply across situations where force is used, including self‑defence and defence of others, with legislation to follow after the required consultation.

Let’s get the language straight. The civil test asks whether an officer’s belief was reasonable when judged objectively afterwards. The criminal test looks first at whether the officer honestly believed force was necessary in the moment, even if that belief later proves wrong. Both tests sit alongside the standing rule that police may only use force that is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances, as set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.

Why now? In 2023 the UK Supreme Court held in the W80 case that disciplinary panels should apply the civil law test to self‑defence in misconduct. A rapid review for the Home Secretary, led by Sir Adrian Fulford and Tim Godwin, concluded the post‑2023 position has caused confusion and dented morale-especially for firearms officers-and recommended moving back to the criminal test.

What happens next? The government has accepted the review’s recommendation and plans to amend the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 after consulting the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. There is no start date yet; ministers say they will lay the change when parliamentary time allows.

A quick note on proof, because this causes the most confusion. Government papers describe a change to the legal test used to judge an officer’s decision to use force, not a blanket switch to the criminal standard of proof across misconduct. Unless Parliament decides otherwise, panels still reach findings on the civil standard-the “balance of probabilities”-according to Home Office statistics and guidance.

Try this classroom example. An officer uses force after believing a person is reaching for a weapon. Under the criminal test, the panel focuses on whether that belief was honestly held in that split second. Under the civil test, the panel also asks whether the belief was reasonable when viewed objectively afterwards. This is why the choice of test changes outcomes in some edge‑cases.

Why supporters back the change. The review reports a “chilling effect” where officers worry about being judged differently in different forums and feel less confident about using lawful force. Police leaders argue officers should be assessed on what they honestly believed at the time rather than frame‑by‑frame hindsight months later.

Why campaigners are worried. Groups supporting bereaved families argue that raising the threshold in misconduct risks weakening accountability and trust. INQUEST and others wrote to ministers earlier this year warning against changes that would reduce scrutiny; critics have continued to voice concerns through 2025.

Zooming out, this announcement sits alongside other policing measures in Parliament. The Crime and Policing Bill proposes a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who are charged after shootings, up to conviction-a move criticised by some media and legal groups on open‑justice grounds. Government analysis notes that police intentionally discharged firearms at a person in only two incidents in the year to March 2024, around 0.01% of 17,589 armed operations, but ministers say the personal risk to named officers can still be acute.

One more strand to track. The same review advises consulting the public on whether inquests should keep using the civil standard for an unlawful‑killing conclusion. That debate follows the Supreme Court’s 2020 Maughan judgment, which set the civil “balance of probabilities” test for all inquest conclusions, including unlawful killing.

What this means for your classroom and your community. When you read headlines, ask whether the story is about the legal test for judging an officer’s decision or the separate standard of proof used to decide facts. Start with primary documents-the Home Office response and the Police (Conduct) Regulations-then build your view.