Prison Officer Gross Misconduct: What Counts and Real Cases

In shortGross misconduct can justify dismissal without notice at a first finding, and the label is often as consequential as the finding itself.

In employment law, gross misconduct is misconduct so serious in itself, or with such serious consequences, that it may call for dismissal without notice for a first offence.

The Acas Code of Practice gives examples such as theft or fraud, physical violence, gross negligence or serious insubordination, and adds that a fair disciplinary process should always be followed.

The Moorland dismissal letter quoted in a 2026 tribunal judgment put it in HMPPS terms: misconduct so serious that it makes any further relationship and trust between HMPPS and the employee impossible.

In shortThe policy's two Annex A lists are not public and not closed, so what we can verify comes from tribunal quotations and other HMPPS frameworks.

PSI 06/2010 includes a Statement of Professional Standards, supported by an Annex A of guidance that has two lists: 'Misconduct' and 'Gross Misconduct'. We cannot reproduce those lists because they are not public. What we can verify is what tribunals have quoted from them and what other HMPPS frameworks say.

2026 tribunal quotation

Examples of misconduct include 'any harassment or discrimination' and 'offensive language or aggressive behaviour towards prisoners, colleagues or members of the public'; examples of gross misconduct include 'racial or sexual harassment or discrimination'. The Statement of Professional Standards is also quoted as telling staff they are personally responsible for their conduct and must not harass others through behaviour, language and other unnecessary and uninvited actions.

2024 tribunal judgment

Recorded an officer's argument that 'unnecessary use of force' might be only misconduct, not gross misconduct. The judge accepted the respondent's point that the two categories are not closed, that the decision-maker was well placed to decide where the proven conduct fell, and added that an assault on a prisoner is clearly defined within the policy as gross misconduct.

In shortCorruption, including inappropriate relationships, is always gross misconduct for HMPPS staff, and there is also a duty to report.

The Counter Corruption and Reporting Wrongdoing Policy Framework, re-issued in May 2022, states that corruption is always gross misconduct for HMPPS staff.

It defines corruption as a person in authority or trust abusing their position for benefit or gain, for themselves or someone else, and says this includes acting or failing to act, that is, turning a blind eye.

The motive can be malicious or what the framework calls 'noble cause'.

Honest mistakes and breaches that do not involve gain, such as assault, bullying, sick-leave abuse or misuse of IT, are outside the corruption definition, though they can still be misconduct.

Inappropriate relationships

Wider than most officers expect. The framework includes intimate or amorous relationships, friendship, and improper emotional or familial feelings towards an offender, 'likening them for example to your own children or siblings'. It also covers relationships with prisoners' friends, family or criminal groups.

Early disclosure

The same framework encourages staff who have fallen short, or who are being pressured, to disclose early, promising to treat them 'sensitively and fairly'. If you are in that position, read our guide to relationships with prisoners and speak to your Local Counter Corruption Manager, the Integrity Hotline or your POA representative before things escalate.

• Conveying prohibited items.
• Aiding an escape.
• Inappropriately facilitating movement or reclassification.
• Inappropriate relationships.
• Disclosing personal or restricted information.
• Accepting or seeking bribes or favours.
• Theft of HMPPS or prisoner property.
• Consistent failure or poor performance of searches, where related information suggests the failure is deliberate.

In shortThe same act may be both gross misconduct and a criminal offence under Prison Act 1952 sections 40B to 40D, and the criminal route takes priority in corruption cases.

• Prison Act 1952ss 40B to 40DConveyance of listed articles, photography, restricted documents and devices such as mobile phones
• Most serious categoryUp to 10 yearsUnauthorised conveyance

The Exclusion Framework lists conduct bearing on security and trust that can ground exclusion, and much of it overlaps with gross misconduct.

• Conveyance of unauthorised items.
• Unauthorised access to or disclosure of information.
• Assisting an escape or abscond.
• Serious security breaches involving keys, locks, radios, uniform or equipment.
• A deliberate failure to act on information about contraband.

In shortTwo Belmarsh officers were dismissed for gross misconduct after an assault finding, and the tribunal found the dismissals fair despite process breaches.

The tribunal noted breaches of the suspension policy (authorised by a lower grade than the policy required, and reviews every 29 to 40 days rather than 28) and the loss of CCTV that would have shown the landing but not the inside of the cell, but held these did not make the process unfair as a whole.

The case shows how use of force allegations are tested against statements, footage and expert evidence, and why the Use of Force Policy Framework tells staff to write statements from memory before viewing footage. See use of force allegations.

In shortIn Hayes the tribunal rejected an unfair dismissal claim after a three-day hearing, finding a reasonable investigation and a sanction within the range of reasonable responses.

The second case is Hayes v Secretary of State for Justice, a reserved judgment dated 21 August 2026 and published on 29 September 2026.

An officer who had served at HMP Moorland from 2018 was dismissed on 6 May 2025 after an internal process that found, on the balance of probabilities, sexual harassment, a sexual assault (grabbing a colleague in the groin area) and unprofessional conduct towards several male colleagues.

We describe the conduct only in general terms because the point for readers is the structure of the case, not the detail.

• The tribunal found a genuine belief, reasonable grounds, a reasonable investigation despite delay, a reasonable procedure and a sanction within the range of reasonable responses, noting that the policy makes clear this type of behaviour will not be tolerated and amounts to gross misconduct.
• The employer's own policy language was decisive in showing the officer should have known.
• The tribunal accepted that earlier informal responses did not 'lull' the officer into believing it was acceptable.

In shortThe policy expects high standards of personal conduct, and whether an off-duty act is gross misconduct depends on its nature and its connection to your role and trust.

The policy expects high standards of both professional and personal conduct, and the Exclusion Framework is explicit about conduct outside work.

It lists violent or threatening behaviour at any time, 'whether during the course of employment or at any other time', and any behaviour leading to a criminal caution or prosecution 'whether work-related or not', among matters relevant to safety, security and reputation.

Vetting aftercare separately requires staff to report criminal charges, warnings and convictions, financial difficulties and changes in associations.

In shortHonest mistakes and poor performance are treated differently from gross misconduct, but the more the facts involve prisoners, security, dishonesty or others' safety, the higher the risk.

The line can still be hard to see from the inside. A search missed because you were short-staffed is a performance or staffing issue; a pattern of missed searches that coincides with intelligence suggesting deliberate failure can become a corruption concern.

A single over-familiar conversation can be informal advice; sustained boundary-blurring can be an inappropriate relationship. The more the facts involve prisoners, security, dishonesty or other staff's safety and dignity, the higher the risk.

• The conduct policy tells managers to separate misconduct from performance or capability.
• The Exclusion Framework says poor performance alone is not a reason to exclude.
• The Counter Corruption framework excludes honest mistakes from the corruption definition.
• The Use of Force framework says the test for reasonableness is the civil test of reasonableness: an honestly and objectively reasonable belief that force was necessary and use of force that was reasonable in the circumstances, judged by asking whether another officer in the moment would have decided the same, not what is known afterwards.