PCD 1347 Stage 1 Pension Forfeiture

PCD 1347 Stage 1 Pension Forfeiture

This decision is to determine whether an application should be submitted to the Home Secretary for a certificate of forfeiture in respect of the former officer’s pension. At this first stage of the process a decision must be made whether the offence committed by the former officer was committed in connection with his or her service as a member of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). 

The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is recommended to: 

• determine that the offence the former MPS officer stands convicted of, was in connection with the officer’s service; 

• approve an application for a certificate of forfeiture to the Home Secretary.  

PART I - NON-CONFIDENTIAL FACTS AND ADVICE TO THE DMPC 

1. Introduction and background 

1. Included in Part 2 of the decision 

2. Issues for consideration 

1. Included in Part 2 of the decision 

3. Financial Comments  

1. There are no direct financial implications for MOPAC associated with the decision at    this stage. Pension forfeiture will ‘benefit’ the Police Officer Pension Fund which is funded by officer and employer contributions and the Home Office Top Up grant, and any individual pension forfeiture will not materially affect these. 

4. Legal Comments  

1. Regulation K5 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 (as amended) made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 states at sub paragraph (4):  

The MOPAC is the local policing body for the Metropolitan Police District under the Police Act 1996. As such, by virtue of section 11(2) of the Police Pensions Act 1976 the MOPAC is the “pension supervising authority” in respect of the Metropolitan Police Service 

2. At this first stage of the process it is for MOPAC to establish whether the ex-officer has committed an offence in connection with his/her service as a member of a police force. The Courts have ruled that the pensioner need not have been a serving officer at the time of the offence in order to meet the requirement that it must be connected with his/her service. For instance, the offence may have been committed after the pensioner retired but he or she may have used police knowledge or police systems or police contacts in the commission of the offence. However, pension rights, once earned, should not be forfeited except in serious circumstances. Forfeiture will therefore not be appropriate in every case where a pensioner has committed a criminal offence, but it should always be considered where the offence was serious and there is or might be public concern about the pensioner’s abuse of his/her position of trust. 

3. Where a case has been identified, (and without prejudice to the final decision by the police authority on whether to forfeit a pension), the police authority should apply to the Home Secretary for the issue of a certificate. The authority should provide the basis for the application, including the reasons for the police authority’s view that the pensioner’s offence was committed in connection with his/her police service. 

4. The Home Secretary will then consider whether the pensioner’s offence was either gravely injurious to the interests of the State or liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service. If the Home Secretary issues a certificate on that basis it will be for the police authority to decide whether and to what extent the pension should be forfeited. 

5. GDPR and Data Privacy 

6. MOPAC has a legal basis for considering forfeiture under the Police Pensions Act 1976. This involves the processing of the individual’s personal data which we will do under the lawful basis of public task under GDPR. The processing of personal data has been minimised within this decision and is held within the confidential Part 2 of this decision form. 

7. In the event of a certificate of forfeiture being issued and MOPAC decides to forfeit the former officer’s pension in whole or in part, consideration will be given on a case by case basis as to whether the name of the former officer, a summary of the crime(s) they were convicted of including circumstances of the case and the amount of forfeiture applied is published at a later date. 

8. Equality Comments  

9. There are no specific equality issues associated with the decision at this stage. 

10. Background/supporting papers 

11. Included in Part 2 of the decision