The new police corruption offence is open to interpretation and could be used more widely than intended

In July 2013, Bijan Ebrahimi, a disabled refugee originally from Iran, was beaten to death and his body burned by “vigilante” neighbours in Bristol. His repeated calls for help from Avon and Somerset police in the hours leading up to his murder were ignored, as were his complaints of harassment from neighbours in the months before.

In December 2015, a police officer and a police community support officer were convicted of misconduct in public office and dismissed from the force, following an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into Ebrahimi’s death.

The two were released on unconditional bail, with sentencing adjourned until later this year. They were two of 18 officers and staff facing misconduct proceedings within the force.

The Law Commission is reviewing the law governing misconduct in public office and has launched a consultation aimed at exploring how the law is used and identifying any problems over a lack of clarity. The commission points out that the legal concepts involved in the offence of misconduct in public office are highly technical and complex and not easily accessible to non-lawyers. It wants to consider whether the existing law should be abolished, retained, restated or amended

The line between what is potentially criminal and what may be a disciplinary offence can overlap, especially in misconduct cases. This overlap looks likely to become even greater, with proposals to make police corruption a new offence, under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

This makes it a criminal offence for a police officer to exercise their power in a way that is corrupt or otherwise improper, or fail to use their power when they should (as was the case with Ebrahimi).



While the intention was to deal with perceived gaps in the criminal law on corruption, it is possible the new police corruption offence will be used more widely than intended.

At the moment, misconduct in public office involves an allegation that a public official has wilfully neglected to perform their duty and/or has wilfully misconducted themselves. But the proposed legislation does not include a seriousness threshold or any requirement of bad faith (intent). It also includes concepts such as “benefit” and “detriment”, which have broad interpretations.

The IPCC carries out independent investigations into the most serious and sensitive allegations against police officers and staff. And as with the Ebrahimi case, sometimes these investigations can lead to criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

Between April 2009 and March 2015, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dealt with 21 potential misconduct cases, referred by the IPCC.



Of these 21 cases, the Crown Prosecution brought charges on 12 occasions against 12 officers. Eleven resulted in convictions for misconduct in public office, with nine officers jailed for periods ranging between four months and four years.

The convicted officers’ behaviour broadly fell into one of three categories: sexual exploitation, deliberate neglect of duties or misuse of police systems. This included, for example, an officer who had falsified witness statements and records of enquiries and officers who had deliberately targeted vulnerable women.

But the effect of creating a new police corruption offence could be to criminalise matters which would previously have been investigated only as misconduct.

As the police corruption offence is very new, none of our investigations arising from it have yet been completed, so we are not yet able to assess its full impact. The IPCC will be responding to the Law Commission’s consultation – click here for more details.

Talk to us on Twitter via @Guardianpublic and sign up for your free weekly Guardian Public Leaders newsletter with news and analysis sent direct to you every Thursday.

