KEY POINTS:
The new disciplinary process for police will make it easier to fire unsuitable officers who have been able to hide behind an anachronistic system that demanded a high standard of proof.
But the Police Association is wary that the new system could make officers think twice about doing
their duty for fear of having a complaint lodged against them.
An overhaul of the way police investigate their own was one of the major recommendations of the Bazley Report, which heavily criticised the system as "cumbersome and anachronistic" and having "no place in a modern police human resources strategy".
At present sworn police officers face the Police Tribunal for matters outside low-level sanctions.
The tribunal mirrors a court where the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, and witnesses give evidence and are subject to cross-examination and re-examination.
Dame Margaret Bazley said in her report that the standard of proof was too high for dealing with employment matters such as poor job performance or misconduct.
In what could have been a stab at the recent high-profile police rape cases, she said: "Sometimes an allegation may fall evidentially short of the criminal standard of proof for rape or other sexual offending, but the conduct established is nonetheless entirely inappropriate and should be the subject of disciplinary action."
Furthermore, the "balance of protection" favoured the defendant and was a disincentive for lodging complaints.
The new system, which will be implemented as soon as possible, will be based on a code of conduct and require a lower standard of proof.
Wayne Annan, police human resources general manager, said all cases not of a criminal nature would be dealt with swiftly.
"We will be going from the system of proof beyond reasonable doubt to one based on the balance of probability, and fairness.
"We expect to be able to deal with matters in a quicker, more efficient manner. It's not the case at the moment, because we're hamstrung significantly due to the 1992 Police Regulations," he said.
Each case had unique circumstances and there would inevitably be "grey areas" when trying to judge the severity of misconduct.
Police Association president Greg O'Connor warned that a system that did not properly test evidence could open the floodgates for complaints.
"We don't want - and this has become very politicised - an onerous system where the only winners become the criminals because police are too scared to do [their duty]. We still want a system that can test the evidence.
"Criminals often make complaints, and criminals are often people that are strangers to the truth."
But Dame Margaret rejected this, saying: "The Commissioner of Police as employer should be well able to assess the reliability and credibility of the relevant evidence."
Mr O'Connor supported some aspects of the new system, such as not treating job performance issues as a criminal matter.
Dame Margaret criticised the present system because the only way to fire unsuitable officers was through the tribunal.
This had led to an "extremely unusual" reliance on the Police Association to persuade unsuitable members to leave the force if the process had failed.
Police Minister Annette King welcomed the new process and said it would "make it much easier for the disciplining of police officers".
