NEW DCC FOR MDP

 

Below is the MOD press release annoucing the appointment of a new DCC for MDP.  I do not know this officer but it is obvious that he has held some very interesting and relevant senior positions in at least two Home Department forces. 

The issue of appointing senior officers to top positions in Non Home Department Forces when they reach the end of their careers in local forces is a sensitive one.  I recall one appointment to BTP being described as 'an officer in the post twilight years of his career"

There is no doubt that in this case the new DCC brings considerable experience and I would not generalise about such appointments.  After all some NHDPFs have been saved by the leaders brought in from outside.

I wish all charged with such demanding posts the very best of luck.

Press release

Ministry of Defence Police appoints new Deputy Chief Constable

Following the appointment of Chief Constable Kier Pritchard in January, the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) has appointed Simon Dobinson as their new Deputy Chief Constable.

Simon has been with the MDP since November 2024, previously holding the rank of Assistant Chief Constable for Territorial, Crime and Support. During his time in this role, Simon was instrumental in building key relationships across Defence, supporting the prioritisation of policing and security assets in support of homeland security.

Simon has had a varied policing career split between the MDP, Essex Police, the Metropolitan Police and Sussex and Surrey Police, serving in specialist and community-related policing roles at all levels.

During his career Simon has specialised in hostage negotiation; public order policing; and, in armed policing, as a firearms officer and chief firearms instructor. He has held several firearms command roles.

As a chief officer in the Metropolitan Police Service, Simon had responsibility for the security portfolio, delivering the Protect strand of the government’s CONTEST strategy and aviation security covering London airports. Simon also held organisation-wide responsibility for the Met’s estate and physical security strategy as well as being their lead for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN).

In 2022 Simon transferred to the Sussex Police in a collaborative role with Surrey Police, with responsibility for specialist uniformed operational support across both forces involving armed policing, public order, dogs, roads policing, emergency planning and local resilience. Simon was Senior Responsible Officer for multiple programmes of work to improve operational effectiveness and efficiencies across both forces as well as being Chair of the Joint Force Legitimacy Board scrutinising use of police powers and Chair of county level road safety partnerships and the Sussex Local Resilience Forum.

In addition to his core roles, Simon has been the National Police Chiefs’ Council portfolio lead for aviation security and airport policing, working with commercial, governmental and law enforcement partners to improve the coordination, communication and consistency of cross-service collaboration in relation to protective security and policing of airports and general aviation.

Simon is a proud member of the Forward Institute which is a body made of up public, private and voluntary sector senior leaders who are passionate about pursuing the agenda of responsible leadership and the development of leaders both in and outside of policing. Simon is committed to driving change in organisational culture and has been a senior sponsor within the Met, Surrey and Sussex Police for leading work in support of improving inclusivity, diversity and equality.

Simon holds a Master’s degree in Risk, Crisis and Resilience Management.

Upon his new appointment as MDP DCC, Simon comments:

I am honoured to take on the role of Deputy Chief Constable of the MDP, a Force that is truly unique in providing specialist policing to defend Defence and protect the homeland. Having served as Assistant Chief Constable, I have witnessed first-hand the dedication and professionalism of our officers and Civil Servants. I look forward to continuing to support the MDP in delivering the highest standards of policing to protect our nation’s assets, infrastructure and personnel.

Chief Constable Kier Pritchard said:

Simon brings extensive experience from across his policing career, and I am confident that he will continue to play a key role in strengthening the MDP as we enhance our capability to support Defence, foster a positive culture, and achieve our strategic objectives.

HILLSBOROUGH LAW & NON HOME DEPARTMENT POLICE FORCES

 

Hillsborough Law

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill – also know as the Hillsborough Law – is currently working its way through parliament.  If passed it will place a number responsibilities on holders of public office and on public authorities.  The preamble to the Bill describes it thus:

 

              Impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness; to make provision for the enforcement of that duty in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; to require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority; to create an offence in relation to public authorities and public officials who mislead the public; to create further offences in relation to the misconduct of persons who hold public office and to abolish the common law offence of misconduct in public office; to make provision enabling persons to participate at inquiries and investigations where the conduct of public authorities may be in issue; and for connected purposes.  (The Public Office (Accountability) Bill Preamble (i)

 

Probably the best known aspect of the Bill is to create a duty of candour.  This is a difficult thing to legislate for and the parliamentary drafters have worked hard to frame a Bill that lives up to the policy requirements.  Practically this will require a major culture shift in some organisations – not least of all in policing.  There is much to be done to prepare for the new law.  If it works it could change the nature of the relationship between police forces and inquiries, and, indeed, with the general public.

The Bill seeks to create various offences.  In particular it will abolish the existing common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office and will replace it with a statutory offence with the same name.

As always with major new legislation it is necessary to consider whether the provisions will apply to Non Home Department Police Forces (NHDPFs).

In this case the answer is (fairly) clear.  Clause 23 of the Bill extends the definition of police force to include, for the purposes of this legislation only, the British Transport Police (BTP), the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) and their respective authorities (the Secretary of State in the case of MDP).  Schedule 2 of the Bill includes employees of public authorities, which includes those who hold an office under an authority without being an employee (i).  All such persons are to be included within the definition of a ‘public official’ with all the duties and responsibilities as such.

No mention is made of the other NHDPFs.  I suspect they have been forgotten.  There is a possibility that the Bill may be amended if anybody notices.  It is also possible that Clause 4 of the Bill (which relates to those who have Health and Safety responsibilities) could, just about, bring some of the employers of NHDPFs into play.

The construction and use of language in parliamentary bills is a highly technical subject of which I have no specialist knowledge.  It could be that the government does not wish the smaller NHDPFs to be included.   Use of the descriptor ‘constable’ would, if used, bring all police officers into the scope of the legislation.

I will write a longer, more general, commentary on this legislation in another place, but will return to this blog if there are any changes which touch on NHDPFs.

 

Philip Trendall

March 2026

 

 

 

(i)                  https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4019 [Viewed 17 March 2026]

(ii)                 Constables in Home Department forces are not ‘employees’ whereas constables in NHDFs are both office holders and constables.  The distinction is of no real consequence but is something that is often mentioned by the Police Federation of England and Wales.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF POLICE FORCE STRUCTURES

 

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF POLICE FORCE STRUCTURES

Further to my recent blog (13 March 2026 -below) on the implications for Non Home Department Police Forces (NHDPFs)of the government’s police reform proposals,  I can now report that the terms of reference for the independent review of police force structures has been published.

A lot is expected from the review in a very short period of time (5 months).  So much depends on the detail of the recommendations, (number of forces etc).  This is an important moment for policing in England and Wales.

I note that the independent review will be staffed by civil servants from the Home Office. Would it not be better just to describe it as a review?

In my last posting on the subject I pointed out that NHDPFs were being ignored in the reform process.  In fact the ToR does not ignore NHDPFs.  It specifically excludes them:

 

The scope of the Review is limited to the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales. The review will not make recommendations about the role or functions of:

• Specialist national agencies (e.g. the National Crime Agency, British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary, MoD Police, Counter Terrorism Policing)  (paragraph 5)

 

It seems odd to me that the most important review of policing for 60 years should exclude small but significant aspects of policing activity.  The proposals talk of creating a national police service, but this will exclude the existing national police forces.  The ToR refers to them as examples of ‘specialist national agencies’ and this is a fair characterisation.  But other specialist agencies are likely to form part of the NPS.  Moreover the work of forces such at BTP takes place almost entirely in public places and requires a very close working relationship with local forces.  Most of the crimes dealt with by BTP are the same as those tackled by local forces.  The work of NHDPFs will be radically changed by the reduction in the number of forces.  The policing of infrastructure and the need to protect the public has never been more important during peacetime and yet the policing of national infrastructure sites and the railway networks is left to one side.

There will be officers and staff in NHDPFs who will breathe a sigh of relief that this review might leave them alone.  Hopefully they will not feel able to claim in the future that they are being left out when important matters are discussed (pay comes to mind).  Reform is difficult, always painful and operates under the cloud of potential failure.  But it is an opportunity to improve policing.  Excluding NHDPFs is an opportunity missed.

 

Philip Trendall

March 2026

 

NOTE

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-force-structures-terms-of-reference/independent-review-of-police-force-structures-terms-of-reference  Published 19 march 2026. [Viewed 18 March 2026]

#Police #British Transport Police #PoliceReform #CNC #MDP #HomeOffice

NHDPFs AND INCAPACITANT SPRAYS

 

NHDPFs AND INCAPACITANT SPRAYS

Picture:  Source Unknown (this image will be removed if it is believed to have breached copyright)

The law around firearms is complicated and frequently changes.  I am not a lawyer, so my comments on the law should be treated with caution and for operational purposes proper legal advice should be obtained.

I was asked a question recently about the possession of certain weapons by constables of the constabularies that are the subject of these blogs.

As a probationary police officer I found studying the law governing firearms difficult.  When doing the promotion exams I found it even more difficult.  When training officers I found it very difficult indeed and when being trained as a tactical and strategic firearms commander I found it massively difficult.  The Firearms Act 1968 is probably one of the most amended acts on the statute book.  Very little of what I learnt in the mid 1980s still applies today.  In the world of operational policing the subject is second only to traffic in being seen as something belonging to the world of the specialist. However  I would say that it sits firmly in the mainstream and that this is as true for NHDPFs as it does for everyone else – with the added complications created by the legal and constitutional position of NHDPFs.

Weapons such as PAVA etc (i) have become essential tools in modern policing.  Similar to ‘pepper sprays’  PAVA is an irritant that can be used by law enforcement officers to subdue offenders who are violent.  It is thought to be stronger than CS Gas and has pelargonic acid as its active ingredient.

There is no doubt that it can be effective quickly and that its use helps to protect officers and the general public.  For this reason it carried by many officers in Non Home Department Police Forces (NHDPFs), who deserve as much protection as anyone else who holds the office of constable.

PAVA and like products are prohibited weapons within the meaning of s 5 (1) (b) Firearms Act 1968 (i), viz   they are weapons of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing.  It is an offence to possess such a weapon unless exemptions or authorisations apply.  Prohibited weapons such as PAVA are also firearms as defined in s57 of the 1968 Act.

So how can police officers be in possession of such objects?

For officers from forces maintained under the Police Act 1996 or the force known as Police Scotland things are quite straightforward.  Exemptions exist under s54 (3) (b) of the Firearms Act 1968 in respect of possession etc.  But officers in NHDPFs are not ‘members of a police force’ for the purposes of most Acts of Parliament.

For the ‘big three’ (ii) the legislation is now clear.  MDP is a creature of the Defence Council and is therefore exempt under the provisions that apply to the Ministry of Defence.  BTP and CNC are included in amendments made to s54 of the Firearms Act.  I say ‘now’ because the amendment touching on BTP was not made until 2014, despite BTP having access to firearms, off and on since the 1940s (and possibly earlier).   I might produce a separate blog on BTP’s firearms journey.  It is a case study that well illustrates why the legislative position of NHDPFs needs to be radically updated.

But what about firearms such as PAVA that are routinely carried by several port and other constabularies?  Those organisations are not automatically exempt from the provisions which effectively prohibit the possession of such weapons.  This is an important point.  An inevitable consequence of possessing firearms is that one day they will be used (iii).

Most of the organisations I have looked at are rather reticent about answering this question.  One has refused a Freedom of Information Act request on the grounds of national security on this point and a related one about jurisdiction.  It is a strange world when the public are denied basic information about the powers used by police officers. 

As far as I can tell these constabularies have been issued a s5 (prohibited weapons etc) authorisation by the Home Office.  I have been told that the exact terms and the conditions imposed in these authorities must not be publicly shared on the instructions of the Home Office, again, if true, not an approach that is in keeping with principles of openness and transparency.

However an authority issued by the Home Office under s5 does not, in itself, allow individual officers and staff to possess prohibited weapons.  In most circumstances an individual firearms certificate would also be required.  Such certificates must be granted by local police forces on proof that there is a Home Office s5 authority in place.  Trying to co-ordinate individual certificates is a challenge and I suspect (although I have not been told) that these constabularies have registered as firearms dealers to avoid the need to seek certificates for individuals.

S8 of the 1968 Act provides:

“A person carrying on the business of a firearms dealer and registered as such under this Act, or a servant of such a person may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of that business”.

It is easy to see the attraction of this section: if you are a dealer then all of your staff can possess weapons.  This device has been used to allow private security guards to possess weapons when escorting ships at risk from pirates.  Indeed I have heard Home Office officials advocate registration as a dealer as a way of avoiding the need for having a certificate(iv). 

I assume that the Home Office and the constabularies that have registered as dealers have taken legal advice, so it is perfectly possible that my concern over the use of this mechanism is ill founded – although I have also seen legal advice that disapproves of it.

My concern is simply put.  Constabularies are not, in any real sense of the words, firearms dealers.  The use of s8 is a conceit.  It is being used as a fiction to avoid the core provisions of the Act itself.  I would suggest that it is not a firm foundation on which to possess and potentially use prohibited weapons.

I note that s34 (1A) of the Firearms Act allows Chief Officers of Police (in Home Department Forces) to refuse to register a prospective firearms dealer:

“The chief officer of police may refuse to register an applicant unless he is satisfied that the applicant will engage in business as a firearms dealer to a substantial extent or as an essential part of another trade, business or profession.”

 

If this is the route by which smaller non home office constabularies seek to legitimise their possession of prohibited weapons then I assume that no local force has raised an objection.

My view is a simple one.  ALL constables and police staff deserve the tools they need to protect themselves (and the public) in the execution of their duty.  The law should be framed in a way that there can be no doubt about the lawfulness of their reasonable actions. IF necessary the law needs to be changed.

For completeness I would add that officers of the Belfast Harbour Police and Belfast International Airport Police carry handguns and are authorised to do so by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004.

All my posts are little more than an expression of opinion.  My views on the subjects of this blog are worth no more than anybody else who has examined the issues.  This post is more complex than most.  It seeks to look at issues that include matters of law and policy.  I would therefore welcome alternative views, corrections and the sight of any legal opinion touching on this issue.

 

Philip Trendall

March 2026

 

 

(i)                  Firearms Act 1968, 1968 Ch 27

(ii)                 This phrase describes the largest of the Non Home Department Police Forces, viz the British Transport Police (BTP), Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP).

(iii)               I have borrowed this phrase from some legal advice I once read – it concentrated the mind and put into context everything else that followed in the document

(iv)               This was a long time ago (2011 to be precise).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Police Reform and Non Home Department Police Forces

 

POLICE REFORM AND NON HOME DEPARTMENT POLICE FORCES

It’s been a long time coming.  For 30 years talk of reducing  the number of police forces in England and Wales has provided a back drop to all considerations about the future of policing.  The White Paper “From Local to National; A New Model for Policing” was published by the Home Office last month. (i)

The White Paper contains the long awaited proposals for the restructuring of policing including:

(1)    The number of forces

(2)    The creation of a national police service which will absorb NPCC, CTP, CoP, NCA etc

(3)    Individual licence to practice provisions for serving officers

(4)    New governance and financial provisions

(5)    A range of other kindred matters

The existence of 43 geographic forces in England and Wales is a product of evolution and arises mainly from the reforms that came out of the Royal Commission of 1962 (ii) and its natural born child, The Police Act 1964 (iii).  Before the 1960s the land was covered in small county, city and borough police forces.  Prior to the amalgamation that followed the passage of the 1964 Act Non Home Department Police Forces (NHDPF) were among the biggest in the country, especially the British Transport Police and the Port of London Authority Police.

Calls, on the grounds of efficiency, for a further reduction in the number of forces led in 2006 to the last Labour government suggesting the creation of ‘strategic forces’.  HMIC produced a significant and influential report in 2005 advocating structural change (iv).  Much of that report remains relevant 20 years on.  In the end the opponents of change were victorious.  Not all of the opposition was logical and some it of had a whiff of parochialism about it.  There was considerable concern around the process of change and widespread acknowledgement that mergers and restructuring would be painful for those involved and could divert attention from the policing task.  We are likely to see a resurgence of opposition – although I am surprised at how little has been seen since the publication of the 2026 proposals.

No doubt the experience of creating a single force for Scotland (v) will have been factored into the plans being developed at the Home Office.

So, what does the White Paper say about the NHDPFs? 

Nothing.

Not a mention. Not a word.  For the purposes of the paper they do not exist. There is no consideration given to the fact that a reformed police service will have a great impact on the way our railways, nuclear and defence and port facilities will be policed.

The Home Office clearly states that it is responsible for policing, but in the same breath denies any role in the policing of some of the most parts of our national infrastructure.  There is a wilful blindness in operation that works against the public interest.

As part of the reform programme an independent review of  the ‘New Number of Forces’ has been appointed under the former Commissioner of the Metropolis, Lord Hogan-Howe.  The terms of reference for this review have not yet been announced but a recent press release stated:

“The review will identify the optimum number of forces and the geographic areas they will cover. It will also consider how the new forces are governed and held accountable to ensure the new system is effective in delivering local policing across the country and responding to the priorities of local communities.(vi)

Nothing here about NHDPFs.

The history of the NHDPFs contains many examples of being overlooked when national issues are considered.  They find themselves playing legislative catch up.  These forces were ignored by the Royal Commission and they are being ignored now.

Taken together there forces have several thousand officers who police complex environments.  Some police public space (vii).  Many NHDFs have specialist officers including many that carry firearms.  The public interest is clear: there should be a joined up approach to how policing is structured.

The current proposals create an opportunity to sweep away the niche maze of legislation, the restrictions on jurisdiction and the dual responsibility for some areas. The public see only a uniform or a detective – they do not study cap badges.  The thought that some officers have restricted powers or have different training rarely occurs to the individual who only turns to the police when they need help.  They would not be impressed by the Home Office pretending that the interface between local and specialist forces is nothing to do with them and does not feature in their plans, or even in their thinking.

Currently it appears that the issue of NHDPFs will be left until reform elsewhere is complete.  This officially designates NHDFs as an afterthought.  Of course the majority of policing is conducted by forces that operate under the remote supervision of the Home Office, but this is not an argument to exclude consideration of the bits that don’t.

There are already three national forces (MDP, CNC and BTP).  Should they not be a part of the proposed national police service (as forces performing similar functions are abroad)?  Or at the very least have their relationship with that organisation described from the outset.

Other questions spring to mind:

How will officers in NHDPFs operate without a licence to practice – or if they are allowed to obtain one how would this work

              How will the new regime for standards be applied to these forces?

What line of accountability will there be for these forces?  The current structures will look very strange when viewed alongside those of the new mega forces.

Will NHDPFs have access to the new developments (AI research, technology procurement etc) that are proposed ?

Will NHDPFs be viable – for example does the country need a separate transport police when the new forces are likely to be big enough to each cover large parts of the railway network?

As we look to the future there is a danger of returning to the past.  No one wants these specialised forces to became security guards in police uniform, dwarfed in status by the forces that surround them and fit only as a source pension supplements for retired local officers. 

NHDPFs do a good job, but they do not do it in isolation.

The government claims to want more efficient, more professional and better joined up policing.  They will not achieve this by ignoring the Non Home Department forces.  There is an opportunity here that should not be wasted.

 

Philip Trendall

March 2026

 

 

(i)                  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/from-local-to-national-a-new-model-for-policing  (Viewed 12 March 2026)

(ii)                 The Report of the Royal Commission on the Police 1962, Cmnd 1728

(iii)               Police Act 1964, Ch 48 1964

(iv)               HMIC [2005] Closing the Gap. A Review of the Fitness for Purpose of the Current Structure of Policing in England and Wales

(v)                 Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.  Acts of the Scottish Parliament 2012 asp 8.  This Act created the constabulary called the Police Service of Scotland (section 6).  This constabulary functions under the brand of ‘Police Scotland’

(vi)               https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lead-of-independent-review-on-new-number-of-forces-appointed [03 March 2026] (Viewed 12 March 2026)

(vii)             The example of the British Transport Police comes to mind – in London alone the Underground sees nearly 4 million passenger journeys a day.

#Police Reform #FromLocalto national #From Local to national #Non Home Department Police Forces #Non Home Office Police Forces

PORT OF TILIBURY

 A really insightful article that is undated but well worth a read.  It is undated but quite recent by the look of it.

PoT Police are of course the successors to the Port of London Authority Police and are still sworn under the Port of London Act 1968.  The history of the PLA and PoT Police is long and distinguished and this article shows that forces such as PoT still have an important role to play in the policing (as opposed to security alone) of the UK.

https://www.portskillsandsafety.co.uk/about-us/campaigns/a-day-in-the-life-of-the-chief-of-police/

Philip Trendall

January 2026 

NOTE:  I am mindful there there of plenty of people who know more than I do about the smaller NHDPFs and I am happy to be corrected if what I have stated is inaccurate.

No responsibility is accepted for external links.  There are followed at the sole risk of the reader.  Caution should be exercised.

POLICE MISCONDUCT STATS: LATEST RELEASE

 The Home Office has published the latest stats on police misconduct in England and Wales.  Unlike other Home Office datasets the figures do not include any of the Non Home Department Forces (NHDPF).  From the angle of public interest this gap is a worry in respect of such forces that have direct and daily interface with the public.  It is possible to see the figures for BTP (the force that has most dealings with ordinary members of the public) but one has to search - and sometimes ask for them.

It is not easy to tell if the upward trend seen in the Home Office figures also applies to NHDPFs.  It would be in the public interest if such a comparasion could be made.  This is true whatever the reasons for the increase are, ie greater public concern, more wrongdoing or greater zeal in dealing with those that misconduct themselves.

I have never really understood why the Home Office includes some NHDPF figures in its publications.  Even when they do the data often only extends to BTP.

The latest release can be found at:  https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2025/police-misconduct-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2025

Philip Trendall

January 2026

Note no responsibility is accepted for problems arising from clicking on links.  Caution should be exercised in all cases.