Recommendation - Metropolitan Police Service, September 2026

The IOPC recommends that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) ensures it has clear policy and guidance detailing the process to be followed when judicial findings are made in private court proceedings involving MPS officers, where those findings may indicate a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. This should include arrangements for the prompt recording of such information when it is first reported, regardless of whether the relevant court documentation or judgment has been disclosed.

This recommendation has arisen following a review of a complaint that was investigated by the MPS. The complainant was involved in Family Court proceedings in which the other party was a serving MPS officer. During the course of those proceedings, the Court made a finding that the officer had lied in a previous court hearing. The complainant complained that the MPS ignored this information and took no action in relation to it. 

The IOPC review found that the evidence did not support the complainant’s concern that the information was ignored. However, the IOPC agreed with the MPS’ finding that the service was not acceptable. This finding was in relation to the fact that, when the court findings were reported to the MPS’ Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS), the DPS decided to await disclosure of the Court’s judgment before taking any action. The MPS’ finding, with which the IOPC agreed, was that best practice would have been for the DPS to formally record what had been reported immediately. There was, however, nothing in MPS policy stating that this was expected or required. 

The IOPC review found that the MPS has a clearly defined policy on the reporting process to be followed when an Adverse Judicial Finding (AJF) is made. An AJF is defined as a “finding by a court expressly or by inevitable inference, that a police witness has knowingly whether on oath or otherwise misled the court”.

However, in this case, the MPS officer was attending Family Court proceedings in a purely private capacity and was not acting as a police witness. The AJF policy therefore did not apply in this case, and it was not clear from our review that the MPS has a policy which sets out the process to be followed when a judicial finding is made in private court proceedings that could give rise to a concern that an officer has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour. 

The IOPC notes that there will inevitably be occasions where MPS officers are involved in private court proceedings, and it is therefore possible that similar situations could arise in future. 

We therefore believe it would be appropriate for the MPS to review its existing policies and procedures to consider whether they cover this type of situation. If they do not, the MPS should develop a specific policy so it is clear to all involved what process needs to be followed.