Prison officer misconduct explained: process, rights, outcomes

In shortMisconduct is behaviour below the standard your employer expects, split into misconduct and gross misconduct, and separate from poor performance and sickness absence.

For HMPPS staff in England and Wales the standards come from several places at once: the Civil Service Code (integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality), the HMPPS Statement of Professional Standards that sits inside the conduct policy, and the Professional Standards and Behaviour guide launched in October 2024.

A tribunal judgment published on 29 September 2026 quotes the policy as saying that staff are 'personally responsible for their conduct'. The standards apply to your professional behaviour and, to a degree, your personal behaviour too.

The policy guidance carries lists for both tiers. We have not been able to see the current lists, so we do not reproduce them. Treat any list you are shown as a guide rather than a closed set.

Misconduct

Conduct serious enough for formal action but that does not, on its own, justify dismissal for a first breach. A published tribunal judgment places harassment, discrimination and aggressive behaviour towards prisoners, colleagues or the public in this list.

Gross misconduct

Conduct so serious that dismissal, even for a first breach, may be justified. The same judgment places racial or sexual harassment or discrimination here.

Poor performance and sickness absence

Different from misconduct. The conduct policy tells managers to separate conduct from performance or capability, and attendance and capability are dealt with under their own policies.

• If your manager says 'this is not disciplinary', ask in writing which process they are using. The distinction matters because the safeguards, time limits and possible outcomes differ.

In shortThe document that governs prison officer discipline, PSI 06/2010, cannot be downloaded, so ask HR (or your POA rep) for the current copy.

Where a document is published we link to it in the sources. Where it is not, the practical route is to ask HR for the current copy, and, if you are a POA member, to ask your branch rep, who will usually have it.

The separate guide to the HMPPS Conduct and Discipline policy explains how to request the current text and what has changed over time.

There is no document called the 'Conduct and Discipline Policy Framework'. HMPPS has converted many instructions into policy frameworks, and readers assume this one was converted too.

The official GOV.UK instruction index generated on 10 July 2026 still lists PSI 06/2010 as extant, with a 2020 contact update and a May 2025 data-protection wording change, and marks it as not published on GOV.UK.

In shortNot every concern becomes a formal investigation: it can be handled informally, as performance or attendance, or routed to counter corruption, the police or Audit.

A manager may notice something themselves, a colleague may report it, a prisoner may complain, or an intelligence report may point to a possible security or corruption issue.

A line manager can deal with something informally through coaching, mediation or training, can treat it as a performance or attendance matter, or can start the formal route.

If fraud is suspected the matter can go instead to Audit under the anti-fraud arrangements.

• Suspected corruption, including inappropriate relationships and conveyance: handled by counter corruption staff and, where there is a crime, by the police rather than your line manager.
• A prisoner complaint about staff conduct: dealt with under the staff conduct policy.
• Use of force: can lead to a formal investigation if the review process finds a concern.
• Our guides on use of force allegations, corruption and bribery and relationships with prisoners take these in turn.

In shortThe sequence is familiar (decision, investigation, case to answer, hearing, outcome, appeal), but little of the detail can be checked publicly.

The contents page of the 2013 policy lists the chapters (post-investigation action, alternative duties and suspension, disciplinary hearing, penalties, appeals), but the text of those chapters is not in any public source we could open.

The table marks each stage with what can be said confidently and what cannot. Where we say 'ask HR', that is because we will not guess. The dedicated guides to the disciplinary process, investigation, suspension and disciplinary hearing go deeper on each.

1. An initial decision about how to deal with the matter.
2. An investigation.
3. A decision on whether there is a case to answer.
4. A hearing.
5. An outcome.
6. An appeal.

In shortThe 2013 principles (fair, open, speedy, improvement-focused, balance of probabilities) are a useful yardstick, not a guarantee.

The same principle was reproduced by an employment tribunal in a 2026 judgment about a Governor-led dismissal at HMP Moorland. Hearing managers do not have to be sure; they have to decide whether it is more likely than not that something happened. That is why careful, accurate, organised evidence on your side matters.

Fairness test

Judged by reasonableness: whether there are grounds for believing misconduct took place, whether the investigation was sufficient, whether the procedure was followed and whether any penalty was proportionate.

Balance of probabilities

More likely than not, with the principle that the more serious the allegation the more convincing the evidence needs to be. It is not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

• Problems should be resolved at an appropriate level and as speedily as possible.
• The process should be fair and open.
• The primary objective is described as encouraging improvement in an individual rather than imposing a sanction.
• No-one is to be dismissed for a first breach of discipline except in gross misconduct cases.
• There is a right of appeal against any formal disciplinary decision.
• Staff who report misconduct must not be victimised.
• Confidentiality is expected throughout, so be careful about discussing the case with colleagues.

In shortYou can expect notice, accompaniment and a typed note of your interview, and you must co-operate honestly without altering evidence or contacting witnesses.

If you cannot attend because your rep is unavailable, ask in writing for a short rearrangement; one tribunal case records an interview being rearranged for that reason. The right to advice before an interview matters most where there may be a police dimension.

In shortSuspension is neither a finding nor a penalty, and the current England and Wales criteria and review periods cannot be verified, so ask in writing.

At the start of an investigation the commissioning manager must consider whether you should remain at work, move to alternative duties, go on detached duty or be suspended.

General guidance says suspension is normally on pay and that you keep your employment rights, and the Acas Code says suspension should be as brief as possible and kept under review.

In the HMP Moorland case the officer was suspended on full pay pending an investigation, and the Deputy Governor said she chose suspension rather than alternative or detached duty because of the nature of the allegations.

For comparison only, the Scottish Prison Service code says suspension should be exceptional and reviewed at two-week intervals. Do not assume that applies to you.

In shortSome conduct is also potentially a crime, in which case the police decide with HMPPS which track proceeds first, and you should take advice before any police interview.

The policy position in corruption cases is that a criminal investigation takes primacy: the police senior investigating officer, in consultation with HMPPS, decides which proceeds first, and HMPPS is expected to consult before taking any HR step that could affect the criminal case.

Staff are expected to support police and the Crown Prosecution Service with statements and evidence.

For more serious matters there is a Crime in Prison Referral Agreement between HMPPS, the National Police Chiefs' Council and the CPS; we have not been able to verify its current text, so check it on GOV.UK before relying on any threshold.

Misconduct in public office

A common law offence with a maximum of life imprisonment, which CPS guidance expressly says covers prison officers and staff in contracted prisons.

Prison Act 1952 offences

Offences about conveying articles into or out of prisons (sections 40B, 40C and 40D).

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Would abolish the common law offence and replace it with new statutory offences. As at 2 October 2026 it had passed the House of Commons, had its Lords second reading on 1 September and had Lords committee days listed for 12, 19 and 21 October. It is not law, and we have not verified whether every prison officer would fall inside its definition of a public office holder.

Police interviews

A different setting from a disciplinary meeting. The POA's legal scheme describes assistance for interviews under caution about work-related matters, and says witness interviews are not covered unless exceptionally approved. Our guides on interviews under caution and misconduct in public office explain the criminal route.

In shortThe usual outcome range is published, but HMPPS's exact sanction list and timescales are not, and outcomes can reach beyond employment.

General guidance on disciplinary procedures lists the usual range of outcomes: no action, a written warning, a final written warning, demotion or dismissal, or an alternative such as mediation.

What we cannot verify for HMPPS is its exact sanction list, who is authorised to issue each level, how long warnings stay live and the appeal timescales.

The Scottish and Northern Ireland codes give figures (6, 9 and 12 months for SPS warnings; up to 24 months for NIPS) but they apply only in those services and we do not apply them to England and Wales.

• A dismissal for gross misconduct, or for misconduct that poses an underlying security risk, can lead to a decision to place the person on the Exclusions Register.
• Vetting status is withdrawn when an exclusion is reported.
• A referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service must be considered where there is a risk to children or vulnerable adults.
• The counter corruption policy states that it is 'likely' staff dismissed for corruption will not be allowed back and that this 'may also affect' work elsewhere in the public sector through vetting. We keep the hedge because the document does.

In shortResigning does not stop the process: HMPPS must complete the investigation and can still decide to exclude you.

Resignation can also change your position in other ways that we cannot verify from public sources, such as how a hearing would run in your absence, what happens to notice and pay, and whether your POA membership and legal assistance continue.

Ask the POA and HR before you decide; take advice from the POA or a solicitor before you resign. We cover the details in resigning during an investigation.

• The Exclusion from Working for HMPPS framework says HMPPS must complete the investigation after resignation.
• The vetting team is informed.
• A decision to exclude can be made in your absence on the balance of probabilities.
• In counter corruption cases, the policy says cases must be formally resolved after resignation as well.
• The Scottish code even says salary can be withheld as a set-off against losses to public funds in fraud cases; that is Scotland only, but it shows the general direction.

In shortTribunal claims now have a 6 month time limit, the unfair dismissal qualifying period falls to 6 months from 1 January 2027, and tribunals do not re-run the hearing.

Prison officers are employees who can bring employment tribunal claims; Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies to Crown employment, and a 2026 judgment decided a Moorland officer's unfair dismissal claim on its merits against the Secretary of State for Justice. In that case the claim failed.

Tribunals ask whether the employer had a genuine belief, reasonable grounds, a reasonable investigation and a decision within the range of reasonable responses; they do not re-run the hearing.

In shortEverything above is England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own published codes, whose current status is unverified.

If you work in Scotland or Northern Ireland, treat these as published versions to compare with whatever HR gives you, not as your rules.

In shortA new Conduct and Discipline policy is expected, so ask in writing which version applies to your case and how transitional arrangements work.

The biggest structural change is the Rademaker Review of HMPPS professional standards, published on 6 May 2025 with 12 recommendations, all accepted by the Government.

According to the Government's written answers of 9 July 2026, the Independent Review, Resolution and Investigation Service (IRRIS) replaced the Tackling Unacceptable Behaviour Unit on 26 January 2026 and runs an Interim Grievance Process.

The same answers said the Grievance and Conduct and Discipline policies were being updated and were 'close to being finalised'. Whether the Commissioner has been appointed is unverified.

• An independent central channel for bullying, harassment and discrimination complaints outside the line.
• An Independent Commissioner for HMPPS Professional Standards.
• A single complaints database.
• Funding for 20 dedicated police investigators across the Regional Organised Crime Units and the Met.

In shortOfficial figures show 248 conduct dismissals in the 12 months to 30 June 2026, but they are headcounts that give no rate and no detail of the conduct.

• Year to 31 March 2023120Financial year to 31 March 2023; 'dismissal, conduct' leavers in prison service establishments
• Year to 31 March 2024167Financial year to 31 March 2024
• Year to 31 March 2025247Financial year
• Year to 31 March 2026244Financial year
• 12 months to 30 June 2026248Provisional; 204 were Band 3 to 5 officers

You may have seen headline figures about prison staff being dismissed. We do not use claimed totals that we cannot trace to a source table. The figures come from the official HMPPS workforce statistics (June 2026 quarter, published 20 August 2026).

These are headcounts of leavers, the latest period is provisional and the tables do not say what the conduct was.

• A count of dismissals does not tell you the rate: the workforce is large (about 18,500 FTE Band 3 to 4 officers at 30 June 2026) and the groupings do not line up, so we compute no percentage.
• Dismissals are the tip of the process. Most investigations end without dismissal, and no published table shows warnings by type or appeals upheld.
• An independent review (Rademaker) found that between 754 and 1,139 public sector prison staff a year faced investigations for bullying, harassment or discrimination-related allegations in 2019/20 to 2022/23, which is 2% to 3% of staff, but 'facing investigation' is not 'found guilty'.

In shortResist the urge to explain, apologise, tidy up or confront: ask for the allegation in writing, get advice, and keep a dated log.

If you have just been told that you are the subject of a conduct matter, the temptation is to act quickly. A calmer sequence usually serves people better. None of it involves coaching evasion; it is about making sure you are treated fairly and can give a clear, truthful account.

1. Ask for the allegation in writing, including which policy and version is being applied and who the commissioning manager is.
2. Contact your POA branch rep or a solicitor before you give any account. Do not wait for the interview invitation.
3. Write down your own recollection of events now, privately, with dates and times. Do not alter any official record and do not delete messages.
4. Do not contact the complainant or witnesses, and do not discuss the evidence with colleagues. Confidentiality is expected.
5. Tell your GP or Employee Assistance support how you are feeling, and ask for Occupational Health adjustments if you need them.
6. Keep a dated log of every letter, call and meeting. A simple timeline is invaluable later.
7. Check your obligations to report: if you are arrested, cautioned or charged you may need to report it for vetting purposes.
8. Use the free misconduct process navigator to see where you are in the process and what to ask next.