Legal and Professional Standards Department - Wrongdoing: Reporting wrongdoing and whistle-blowing (P01a)

1. Summary of Changes

1.1. This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been reviewed in July 2024 - amendments made to confidential reporting options in paragraph 3.3.2. 

2. What this procedure is about

2.1. This policy provides guidance to all staff in relation to the appropriate steps they can take to report or challenge wrongdoing or misconduct by other members of staff. All staff who report wrongdoing in good faith deserve the support of the organisation. This policy seeks to detail the support all staff can expect through a proper risk assessed approach.   

2.2 The Code of Ethics for policing creates a general duty for all staff to report and challenge misconduct.

2.3 There are also specific protections in employment law which arise from the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This legislation seeks to safeguard staff in any organisation who challenge wrongdoing or misconduct. This policy seeks to integrate those statutory protections into a broader framework.

2.4 The SOP sets out the way in which the organisation will manage and support officers and staff who report wrongdoing, or suspected wrongdoing, by other staff.

2.5 The SOP seeks to set national guidance around “whistle-blowing” within the practical context of an organization with a general ethical duty to challenge and report misconduct, and in its relation to the ordinary duties of supervisory staff. National guidance now classes all reports of wrongdoing as potential “whistle-blowing”, whether such reports adhere to the legal definitions of whistle-blowing or not. This SOP seeks to recognise that move and to provide a standard approach of support to all staff who show the moral courage to report wrongdoing.

2.6 This SOP aims to create a climate in which staff feel there is a genuine organisational commitment to openness and transparency, and those who raise concerns in good faith will be supported.

Compliance with this SOP and any governing policy is mandatory.

3. Detail the procedure

3.1 What is wrongdoing?

3.1.1. Wrongdoing is employed intentionally as a broad term which may describe specific misconduct under the police regulations, criminal acts, or any other misbehaviour, including the failure to properly perform an official duty, wilful negligence or other improper actions.

3.1.2. Officers and staff who become aware of “wrongdoing” may well be unsure of the exact character of the matter at the outset. It is therefore important to establish a flexible process in which concerns can be raised, assessed and handled effectively and proportionately.

3.2 Reporting mechanisms

3.2.1. In most cases, concerns about potential wrongdoing by another member of staff/officer should be reported through the ordinary chain of supervision. However, the force recognises that there are circumstances in which this may not be appropriate; for instance, where the person making the report suspects the involvement or complicity of their supervisor/line manager. In such a case, the person raising a concern should approach the next tier of oversight in the following order of escalation:

• supervisor
• manager
• senior management team
• Professional Standards Department

3.2.2. An officer or staff member with specific concerns may also properly disclose issues connected with wrongdoing to certain departments with relevant responsibilities including:

• Force Diversity team
• Human Resources
• Welfare and Counselling Services/Occupational Health
• PIU
• OPCC

3.2.3. These departments will provide appropriate further guidance as required by the circumstances of the case.

3.2.4. The force also recognises that staff with concerns about wrongdoing may first approach their staff association for guidance and advice. There is nothing improper in this step. Representatives of the Police Federation, Unison and Superintendents Association can offer independent and confidential advice to their members and can often assist staff in determining what further action should be taken or to whom the matter should be referred.

3.3 Confidential reporting mechanisms

3.3.1. Whilst the open reporting of misconduct by any member of staff is actively encouraged, it is recognised that some members of staff may wish to remain anonymous. The force recognises that the wider public interest in the prevention of misconduct and malpractice justifies any potential tension with the positive duty to challenge and report misconduct, which may arise from the existence of such a system.

3.3.2. There are two mechanisms available to officers and staff to provide information confidentially:

1. CrimeStoppers Police Integrity Line
2. Speak Up - anonymous e-mail system

3.4 Preserving confidentiality

3.4.1. In some circumstances the public interest in relation to the prosecution of offenders or prevention of future malpractice may lead investigators to seek the co-operation of a confidential information source as a witness. Informed consent is required in such cases, and all staff should have confidence that emails sent through the anonymous system cannot be traced by technical means.

4. “Whistle-blowing”

The Employment Rights Act 1996 gives rise to specific protections for employees of public and private bodies, including the police, who report wrongdoing in defined circumstances which create a risk, or perceived risk, that they may later be treated detrimentally by the employer.

The Act defines a protected disclosure, sets out lawful procedures for persons making such disclosures to follow, and provides a remedy mechanism for an employee who is subjected to a detriment after making such a disclosure.

4.1 Protected disclosures

4.1.1. To be defined as a “whistle-blower” within the scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996 an employee must make a protected disclosure.

4.1.2. This requires that the person must believe the that they are acting in the public interest, by virtue of:

• the number of people affected by the wrongdoing
• the seriousness of the wrongdoing
• the identity of the wrongdoer
• the organisational impact of the wrongdoing

4.1.3. The qualifying disclosure must also convey one of the following categories of information:

• that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed
• that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which they are subject
• that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur
• that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered
• that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged
• that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed

4.1.4. There is no requirement that the person who makes a protected disclosure must personally have been affected by the activity/malpractice they disclose.

4.1.5. There is a statutory expectation that internal channels for “whistle-blowing” should be explored before a disclosure is made to an external party. The internal channels through which an officer/staff member could reasonably make a protected disclosure are set out in section 2, above.

4.2 External disclosures

4.2.1. A worker may also make a protected disclosure to a “prescribed person” per section 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Such “prescribed persons” are usually the holder of offices with relevant legal oversight responsibilities. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is the “prescribed person” for disclosure which relate to police misconduct.

4.2.2. There are also limited circumstances in which a protected disclosure may be made to third parties, including the news media. These are set out in section 43G of the Employment Rights Act.

4.2.3. The Home Office statutory guidance on professional standards makes clear that: “reporting externally… to the media or other bodies external to policing, however, should only occur in exceptional circumstances as a last resort. Police forces and the IOPC have robust mechanisms in place to deal with officers.”

4.3 Application to policing

4.3.1. Home Office guidance states that any report of a breach of a standard of professional behaviour; or any failure to meet the organisation’s legal obligations, such as a failure to apply PACE codes of practice correctly; or any failure to meet common law objectives such as a duty to prevent and detect crime, will be considered a qualifying disclosure.

4.3.2. However, it is recognised most reports of wrongdoing are not made specifically on the basis of public interest, but rather in the expectation that the organisation itself will investigate and, where appropriate, take corrective action. Similarly, many reports of wrongdoing are made by supervisory officers and staff, for whom challenging improper conduct is an essential part of the role and creates no risk, real or perceived, of subsequent detrimental treatment.

4.3.3. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that each report of wrongdoing should be assessed to ascertain whether it is appropriate to treat the person making any disclosure of information as a “whistle-blower.” Such a decision will be reached by the appropriate authority in consultation with the individual where appropriate.

4.4 Grievances and “whistle-blowing”

4.4.1. It is important to differentiate between “whistle-blowing” and the separate processes which exist to deal with workplace grievances. A grievance tends to be a complaint about an issue specific to an individual and his/her working conditions: for example, allocation of an unreasonable workload or bullying.

4.4.2. The whistle-blowing framework is intended to apply where the allegation of wrongdoing has a wider application, which gives rise to a public interest in the act of disclosure.

4.5 Qualifications and limitations

4.5.1. No member of staff will be subject to disciplinary action because they have a made a protected disclosure.

4.5.2. However, the act of making a disclosure confers no valid claim of immunity from unrelated or pre-existing disciplinary proceedings.

4.5.3. Nor can a person making a disclosure which reveals their own complicity in serious misconduct thereby claim immunity in their own case.

4.6 Official secrets

4.6.1. There are certain types of disclosure which are excluded from the protection given to whistle-blowing. Most notably is any disclosure of material which would be prohibited under the Official Secrets Act 1989.

4.6.2. The disclosure of material subject to legal professional privilege would also fall outside the scope and protection of the act.

4.7 Truth and honesty

4.7.1. There is no requirement that a protected disclosure ultimately be proved true in order for the person sharing the information to claim the protection due to a “whistle-blower.”

4.7.2. However, any disclosure must be made in good faith. In other words, the “whistle-blower” must honestly believe the disclosure he/she makes to be true at the time the disclosure is made in order to claim protection under the Public Interest Disclosure and Employment Acts.

Professional Standards procedure

4.8. Case determination

4.8.1. The appropriate authority must consider within the initial policy file assessment document the status of any person involved in an initial report of wrongdoing. 

4.8.2. Any persons identified who have provided information which amounts to a protected disclosure must be named at point 1.2 of the severity assessment.

4.9.  Risk assessment

4.9.1. Any person identified as a whistle-blower must have a risk assessment completed, as per the below.

4.9.2. Kent Police recognises that the degree of support which is required within the workplace will depend on a range of factors, including the circumstances in which a disclosure is made, the rank or role of the person making the disclosure, and the subject matter. The force has therefore adopted a graduated approach to risk management based on “tiers”. The risk assessment will establish which tier of support is required for each “whistle-blower”.

Tiers of support

4.10. Tier 1

4.10.1. Person is defined as a whistle-blower by strict adherence to Home Office guidance, however, by virtue of role or circumstances there is very low risk of adverse treatment flowing from the decision to disclose/report. This may apply to the majority of cases in which a disclosure is made by an officer/manager/trainer about those junior to him/her.

4.10.2. In such cases normal procedure will involve notification of statutory rights and procedure to follow in the event of unforeseen repercussions.

4.11. Tier 2

4.11.1. Person is defined as a whistle-blower and the general circumstances suggest that they are at some risk of retaliation or victimisation in the workplace. This status may commonly apply to officers who report misconduct by others of the same rank, or equal status.

4.11.2. Tier 2 cases will lead to the appointment of a welfare officer. This role may be needed to provide active support for the officer in the event of victimisation and provide an ongoing channel of communication with Professional Standards.

4.12. Tier 3

4.12.1. Person is defined as a whistle-blower and at significant risk of retaliation or victimisation in the workplace as a result. This status is likely to apply to those who have reported misconduct by officers/staff more senior in status or by a group of their peers.

4.12.2.Tier 3 “whistle-blowers” would require the appointment of a welfare officer and notification of the case to SLT. Where appropriate the welfare role may be performed by a more senior officer outside the departmental/divisional management chain. Other support measures available would include a supported move of location/role. Any such move would take place only at the request of the officer concerned.

4.13. Protected disclosure risk assessment

Factors of allegation	Level of risk - high, medium or low	Details
What is the nature of the allegations?
Is the allegation against an individual/group of individuals or organisational?
What is the likely impact of the disclosure ie. misconduct/gross misconduct/criminal proceedings/public outcry/media interest
What is the relationship between the person making disclosure and the person being disclosed against?
Is the identity of the person making disclosure likely to become known?
What is the potential for reprisal?
Personal/emotional issues if applicable
Is the person making the report considered vulnerable for any reason?
Will it affect partners or other family members?
Is there a risk of self- harm?
Has the person previously experienced thoughts of self-harm?
What are the person’s domestic circumstances?
Does the person have support from friends/family/colleagues?
Are there any current health/welfare issues?

Overall assessment of tiering for officer/staff member making disclosure.

Note the completing officer will determine the overall assessment and should use professional judgement to reach this decision based on all the facts and information known to them at the time of completion.

4.14. Actions following risk assessment

4.14.1. Once a person has been categorised by tier, the following is put in place:

• Tier 1 – supplied with whistle-blower guide
• Tier 2 – supplied with whistle-blower guide and welfare officer
• Tier 3 – supplied with whistle-blower guide, assigned welfare officer and offered review of role/location. Ongoing contact from PSD to monitor treatment

4.14.2. The investigating officer (IO) will ensure that the whistle-blower, where known, is supplied with the whistle-blower leaflet.

4.14.3. Where there is a need for a welfare officer to be appointed (tier 2 or 3) the SLT for the officer/staff member will be contacted by a PSD supervisor who will request the appointment of a welfare officer by the relevant SLT.

4.14.4. Where the officer or staff member requests a move of role/location owing to the disclosure a consultation meeting will be held between PSD, the officer or staff member concerned, an HR partner and relevant SLT member will be convened. No member of staff or officer will be compelled to move without their express agreement, nor is there a guarantee of movement based on a disclosure being made.

4.14.5. Support provided to the whistle-blower may extend beyond the duration of any resulting investigation and endure for a period to be agreed by all parties.

4.15. Four-point plan

4.15.1 The process for identification and management of protected disclosures will therefore consist of four distinct stages:

Stage	Action	Means of discharge	Person responsible
I	Initial assessment against statutory criteria	During case severity assessment	Appropriate authority
II	Completion of risk assessment form	Initial contact with officer concerned	Investigator
III	Risk tier allocated to the case	By agreement with officer concerned	Appropriate authority
IV	Control measures and review mechanism set	In conjunction with HR/line management	Appropriate authority

5. Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)

5.1. An EIA has been carried out and shows the proposals in this policy would have no potential or actual differential impact on grounds of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, transgender, disability, age, religion or belief or sexual orientation

6. Risk assessment

6.1. This SOP has been assessed as low risk.

7. Consultation

• Detective Chief Inspector Professional Standards
• Detective Inspector Professional Standards
• Detective Inspector Counter Corruption Unit
• Finance
• IT Security
• Estates
• Human Resources
• Health and Safety
• Legal
• Freedom of Information
• Equality and Diversity 
• Superintendents Association
• Unison
• Federation

8. Monitoring and review

8.1. This SOP will be reviewed by professional standards every two years, with the next review taking place in January 2026. 

9. Security

9.1 Kent Police has measures in place to protect the security of your data in accordance with our Information Management policy (Policy W1000 – Information Management).

10. Retention and disposal of records

10.1 Kent Police will hold data in accordance with our Records Review, Retention and Disposal policy (Policy W1012 – Records Review, Retention and Disposal).