Federation management using Appendix 9 notices ‘to silence critics’ independent review hears

Panel says Federation management should not be involved in internal disciplinary cases and recommends system similar to that used by British Medical Association.

There is a strong perception among branch boards that the Federation management are using internal disciplinary arrangements – known as Appendix 9 notices –  to silence its critics, the second stage of an independent review of the troubled organisation has stated.

The review, which did not comment on individual cases said it was ‘concerned’ about aspects of the Federation’s disciplinary procedures. There have been a number of high profile suspensions of officials including national Chair Steve Hartshorn and Met Fed chair Rick Prior who has now been dismissed.

The review which was commissioned by the Fed’s own senior management in 2024 said there was a fear among National Council and National Board members that “if they spoke out they would be served an Appendix 9 notice and sent ‘back to uniform and back to shifts – it’s a big change for you overnight and it’s a big fear.’

The review which was highly critical of the culture of the Federation, said that “it appears to us that in many we interviewed there is a real fear of ‘being served’ an Appendix 9 notice, and that many branch officers – and some national officers we spoke to – were genuinely concerned about the appropriateness of its use.”

It added: “The perceived misuse of Appendix 9 was an issue raised with us in every meeting of branch officers. The observation they made was that Appendix 9 was being routinely misused, not to investigate and, if appropriate, discipline Fed officers who have fallen foul of the standards required by the Federation, but to silence critics of the Federation’s CEO and national officers.”

Statements made to review members were that ‘Appendix 9 is being used to shut people up’ and ‘It’s a bizarre governance process. People are being silenced and served papers basically to shut them up.’

It warned that the concern of many branch officers ‘cannot be ignored’ and drew comparisons with other professional organisations such as the BMA (British Medical Association) who employ independent investigators to conduct initial inquiries into a complaint.

The review concludes that a common point amongst the disciplinary process of both the teacher unions and the BMA is that National Executive (in the Federation’s case, National Board members, and National Council members) are not involved in the conduct of disciplinary processes.

The review panel has recommended a new system whereby the Federation creates a complaints panel of rank-and-file members to hear cases and make judgements, with support from external specialists where appropriate.

On the wider internal culture of the Federation the panel is also damning. It says that the way members of the Federation “at all levels at times talk to and about each other would not be tolerated within any other modern organisation.”

The panel states: “It has been suggested to us that this is a wider problem within policing as a whole, but conversely, we have been told that if officers expressed themselves in such ways in front of senior ranks they would be facing disciplinary charges. Whatever the reason for this behaviour it has to stop.”

It has  heard Federation members talk of others as “dissidents”, “internal terrorists”, “villains”, and “the enemy within” which it says is evidence of a contempt for those of opposing views which is not acceptable within a membership organisation seeking collective action for the benefit of all members.

It adds: “The drawing up of camps and the isolation of those within opposing camps – on all sides – by such language makes the environment unsafe and forces dissent underground.”

It highlights “the use of social media to vilify others” and says it will be increasingly difficult to persuade people to stand for elected office “if they are subject to the vitriol on social media that seems at the moment to be part of this organisation’s currency.”

“We have also heard distressing claims of misogynistic behaviour within the Federation which we are told has had severe impacts on women police officers and Federation officers, undermining their work within the Federation and making it an unsafe and toxic environment for them. It is particularly worrying that a member organisation which fights for equality in the workplace faces allegations of unacceptable behaviours and attitudes which discriminate against women”

Elsewhere in the review the independent panel, which included Baroness Mary Bousted, a former head of the TUC, and Peter Vicary-Smith, former CEO of Which, recommends a number of changes to the Federation’s governance structures.

This includes abolishing the National Chair and National Secretary roles to be replaced with a new role of General Secretary. They should also have a tenure limit, of a maximum of one 5-year term with the possibility of serving a further 3-year term. The panel says “this ensures they retain a direct knowledge of the issues facing front-line police officers and don’t become ‘institutionalised’ by protracted periods at Head Office, whilst still giving time for them to gain the experience valuable in executing the role effectively.”

It says the roles of National Secretary and National Chair should be abolished, in 2028 at the end of the next period of office.

Caption: The panel is chaired by former President of the TUC Professor Mary Bousted, alongside former President of the Law Society Dr I. Stephanie Boyce and former CEO of Which? Mr Peter Vicary Smith pictured at the Leatherhead HQ with CEO Mukund Krishna.

Category: Misconduct proceedings