What this means
Start with the exact decision in front of you.
Police forces handle many matters while the IOPC oversees, directs or independently investigates specified cases. The mode of investigation affects responsibility and process, but the later disciplinary decision remains a distinct stage.
Immediate priorities
Organise the position before responding.
Confirm the investigation mode and named investigator
Read the terms of reference and any revisions
Track requests, interviews and disclosure by source
Detailed guidance
The procedure, evidence and possible route from here.
01
Confirm who controls the investigation
Start with the recorded mode of investigation. In a local investigation, the force appoints and controls the investigator. In a directed investigation, the appropriate authority investigates under IOPC direction. In an independent investigation, the IOPC carries out the investigation itself. The IOPC may also decide after referral that a force should handle the matter without its direction. Record the mode, the appropriate authority, the named investigator and any IOPC decision because those facts determine where requests, representations and complaints about the conduct of the investigation should be sent.
Read the terms of reference as a working definition of scope. They should identify the events and possible conduct being investigated, while remaining capable of revision if the evidence warrants it. Compare them with the formal notice given to the officer; the two documents serve related but distinct purposes. If the investigator begins asking about a new episode, person or professional standard, request written clarification and any necessary amendment. A change in scope may also affect referral requirements, severity, disclosure needs and the time reasonably required for a response.
- Obtain the IOPC mode decision and investigator details
- Compare terms of reference with the officer's notice
- Track every scope or classification revision
02
Build a source-led investigation record
Create an evidence schedule organised by source rather than by the narrative favoured by either side. For each item, record its holder, date, time range, integrity information and any restriction. Typical material may include recordings, digital audit trails, incident logs, scene evidence, custody records, statements, intelligence handling and policy. Identify gaps precisely, such as a missing camera segment or dispatch log, and explain the issue it bears on. The investigator decides what steps to take, but a reasoned request is more useful than a broad demand for every document.
Prepare for interview by separating first-hand recollection, inferences drawn at the time and information learned later. Check whether the interview is under the conduct framework, a witness process or criminal caution, and whether the officer can consult a representative before or during it. Answer the questions for that process without importing privileged advice from another. Afterward, retain the record or agreed summary and flag transcription or factual errors promptly. Do not privately retain operational data simply because it was displayed during interview; use the formal disclosure route.
- Schedule evidence by origin, date and permitted use
- Tie each missing-item request to a live issue
- Confirm interview status and preserve the formal record
03
Prepare for the report and case-to-answer decision
An investigation report should assemble and evaluate the evidence for the next statutory decisions; it is not itself a misconduct finding. Check whether the report accurately states the live allegation, includes material that undermines as well as supports it, and distinguishes evidence from the investigator's inference. Note any outstanding line of inquiry or unavailable record. The appropriate authority, or the IOPC where legislation gives it the relevant role, then makes or directs decisions about a case to answer and action under the applicable framework.
When the investigation concludes, obtain the outcome letter, report where disclosable and reasons for the next action. Review rights belonging to a complainant are different from an officer's route for challenging disciplinary findings. Likewise, an IOPC recommendation or direction does not erase the need for the disciplinary decision-maker to determine a referred case. Keep a chronology of the referral, investigation mode, report, case-to-answer decision and proceeding notice. This reveals both delay and changes of legal responsibility without treating every body involved as one decision-maker.
- Check the report against the final allegation and evidence schedule
- Identify who makes the case-to-answer and action decisions
- Separate complaint review rights from officer challenge routes
Key questions
Keep the analysis tied to this stage.
Who has operational control of the investigation
Whether referral or reclassification is required
What report and decision will follow
Advice is provided only by the regulated firm that accepts a matter.
Common questions
Clarifying the route without assuming the outcome.
What is the difference between a directed and independent IOPC investigation?
A force conducts a directed investigation under IOPC direction. The IOPC itself carries out an independent investigation. The written mode decision should identify which applies.
Does an investigator decide that misconduct is proved?
No. The report informs later statutory decisions. The appropriate authority or hearing body must make the relevant case-to-answer, factual and disciplinary determinations.
Connected guidance
Continue through the topic map.
Use the hub for the full sequence or choose the connected route that matches the notice.
Official sources
Check the material for this question.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Rules change, so compare the current notice and linked official material and tell the operator if a citation or summary needs correction.