News & Insights

James Lloyd Successful in Gross Misconduct Case Arising from Fatality Following Police Contact

15/04/2026

James Lloyd acted for Officer J in gross misconduct proceedings. The case arose from a fatal road traffic incident involving an unmarked police vehicle following a short pursuit.

Officer J was the passenger operator in the police vehicle. The allegations concerned two accounts provided by the officer during the Post Incident Procedure (PIP) process, in particular a statement that they had said words to the effect that the vehicle should “turn back” shortly before the collision.

The Appropriate Authority alleged that this account was false and had been deliberately fabricated in order to assist the driver. In the alternative, it was alleged that the inclusion of that account amounted to a lack of diligence. The case therefore raised issues of dishonesty, inference, and the reliability of memory in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic incident.

The panel heard detailed evidence regarding the PIP process, including the distinction between Stage 3 accounts (taken promptly, without conferring and without access to reference material) and Stage 4 accounts (taken later, often after review of available material). Evidence was also called from expert witnesses in the field of memory and trauma.

Accepting James’ detailed submissions, the panel found that the Appropriate Authority had not proved dishonesty, that the officer had an honestly held belief in the account they gave at the time, and that the IOPC had levelled misconceived criticisms of the officer, ignorant of the nature of the PIP process. It also noted that the officer had not been afforded the opportunity, envisaged by the relevant APP guidance, to review and amend their account once further material (including full audio from cleartone footage) became available.

The panel preferred the evidence of the expert in memory relied upon by the defence, and agreed with significant concerns about the reliability of expert evidence relied upon by the Appropriate Authority.

The panel went on to reject the alternative allegation of lack of diligence. It found that the officer had complied with the PIP process, had taken care in preparing their accounts, and had acted in accordance with the instructions and support provided at the time, in the immediate aftermath of difficult and traumatic events.

Accordingly, none of the factual allegations said to amount to misconduct or gross misconduct were found proved, and the case against Officer J dismissed. James was instructed by Mark Riley of MJR Solicitors and Raffaele Cioffi, Chair of the Sussex Police Federation.

James was instructed by Mark Riley of MJR Solicitors, and Raffaele Cioffi of Sussex Police Federation.