Lords division · 16 Apr 2026 · No. 4

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Davies of Gower moved Motion R1, as an amendment to Motion R, at end to insert “, and do propose Amendment 339B in lieu—339B After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause— “IOPC investigations where officer acquitted(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).(2) In section 13B—(a) in subsection (1), at end insert—“but this is subject to the exception in section 13BA.”;(b) in subsection (2), at beginning, for “The” substitute “Unless the exception in section 13BA applies, the”.(3) After section 13B, insert—“13BA No re-investigation on acquittal for the same conduct(1) Where this section applies, the Director-General may not make a determination under section 13B(2) to re-investigate the complaint, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter.(2) This section applies where—(a) the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be) has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4G) of Schedule 3,(b) as a result of the determination mentioned in paragraph (a), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(c) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(3) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);(b) evidence is compelling if—(i) it is reliable,(ii) it is substantial, and(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.(7) In this section—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the investigation related;(b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be).”(4) After paragraph 24C of Schedule 3, insert—“Investigation where person acquitted in criminal proceedings24D (1) This paragraph applies where—(a) an investigation of a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter (“the index investigation”) under paragraphs 16, 18 or 19 has concluded,(b) the final report has been submitted to the relevant authority under paragraph 22,(c) the relevant authority has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4F),(d) as a result of the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(e) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(2) In this paragraph—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the index investigation related;(b) “relevant authority” means the Director General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be).(3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant authority may not—(a) initiate a new investigation,(b) re-open an investigation,(c) continue an investigation, or(d) order a re-investigation under paragraph 25,against the relevant person in relation to the same complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter that was the subject of the index investigation.(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);(b) evidence is compelling if—(i) it is reliable,(ii) it is substantial, and(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”(5) In paragraph 25—(a) after sub-paragraph (4D) insert—“(4DA) The Director-General may not direct that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4C)(b) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to that investigation.”;(b) after sub-paragraph (4E) insert—“(4EA) The local policing body may not make a recommendation to the appropriate authority that the complaint be re-investigated if paragraph 24D applies in relation to the conduct to which the investigation related.”(6) The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 are amended in accordance with subsections (7) to (10).(7) In regulation 23 (referral of case to misconduct proceedings)—(a) in paragraph (3)—(i) in sub-paragraph (b), for “(whatever the outcome of those proceedings)”, substitute “and the officer concerned has been found guilty”;(ii) before second “regulation” insert “regulation 23A,”;(b) in paragraph (9), after “10(3)” insert “and regulation 23A”.(8) After regulation 23, insert—“Prohibition on misconduct proceedings where officer has been acquitted23A.—(1) This regulation applies where—(a) the appropriate authority has made a determination that misconduct proceedings should be brought against the officer concerned under regulation 23(1)(b), (2)(c) or (3),(b) the misconduct proceedings have been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),(c) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and(d) the officer concerned has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(2) This regulation also applies where—(a) the Director General has given the appropriate authority a direction to bring misconduct proceedings against a person under paragraph 23(5A)(e) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act,(b) the appropriate authority has brought misconduct proceedings against the officer concerned in compliance with the direction mentioned in sub-paragraph (a),(c) those misconduct proceedings have been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),(d) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and(e) the officer concerned has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(3) Where this regulation applies—(a) regulations 23(3) and (9) do not apply,(b) the Director General must withdraw the direction to the appropriate authority to bring misconduct proceedings against the officer concerned, and(c) the appropriate authority must direct that the misconduct proceedings be withdrawn.(4) The Director General must withdraw the direction to bring misconduct proceedings under paragraph (3)(b) as soon as the Director General receives notification that the officer concerned has been acquitted in any criminal proceedings.(5) The appropriate authority must terminate the misconduct proceedings under paragraph (3)(c) as soon as the Director General receives notification that the officer concerned has been acquitted in any criminal proceedings.(6) Paragraph (3) does not apply only if—(a) the appropriate authority or the Director General has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and(b) the appropriate authority or the Director General is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.(7) In paragraph (6)—(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);(b) evidence is compelling if—(i) it is reliable,(ii) it is substantial, and(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.(9) For the purposes of paragraph (6), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”(9) In regulation 49 (referral of case to accelerated misconduct hearing)—(a) in paragraph (3)—(i) in sub-paragraph (b), omit “(whatever the outcome)”,(ii) after “determination,” insert “subject to regulation 49A”;(b) in paragraph (4), after “10(3)”, insert “and 49A”.(10) After regulation 49, insert—“Prohibition on referral of case to accelerated hearing where officer acquitted49A.—(1) This regulation applies where—(a) the appropriate authority has made a determination that is within paragraph (2),(b) the appropriate authority has referred the case to an accelerated misconduct hearing under regulation 49(4) or (7),(c) the accelerated misconduct hearing has been suspended by virtue of regulation 10(3),(d) any criminal proceedings have concluded, and(e) the officer concerned in those criminal proceedings has been acquitted.(2) A determination is within this paragraph if—(a) it is a determination that the special conditions are satisfied under regulation 49(1), or(b) it is a further determination that the special conditions are satisfied under regulation 49(3).(3) Where this regulation applies—(a) regulations 49(3) and (7) do not apply, and(b) the appropriate authority must withdraw the referral of the case to accelerated misconduct proceedings.(4) Paragraph (3) does not apply only if—(a) the appropriate authority has come into possession of new and compelling evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and(b) the appropriate authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.(5) In paragraph (4)—(a) evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related);(b) evidence is compelling if—(i) it is reliable,(ii) it is substantial, and(iii) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person;(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5)(b)(iii), the outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.(7) For the purposes of paragraphs (4) to (6), it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.”””The House divided:   

At a glance The Not Contents won by a margin of 19 votes. The Government's position was Not Content, and it won.

How the parties voted

The party breakdowns are our own analysis of the official voting records (recorded votes only; they do not describe the formal whip). How we work this out.

Peers attend divisions ad hoc, so there is no did-not-vote list. Tellers are counted in the Content and Not Content totals, unlike in the Commons.

Tellers: The Earl of Courtown (Content), Lord Sandhurst (Content), Lord Lemos (Not Content), Baroness Wheeler (Not Content).

Every vote

No members match your search.

Source: the official Lords division record.