Re-investigation policy - July 2025

We are currently seeking views on proposed updates to our re-investigation policy which sets out how the IOPC will make decisions to re-investigate a case which has previously been concluded. 

Please note this policy is in draft, and this document is also available in Welsh.

Why are we updating our policy

In 2024, the IOPC re-opened an investigation into the fatal shooting of Lewis Skelton by Humberside Police, following a judicial review of our decision not to re-investigate. The High Court quashed our decision that the threshold was not met for us to re-open the investigation. 

The High Court used a different interpretation of our re-investigation policy than we did. This demonstrated that there was a need to review our policy to ensure it more accurately reflects the original intent behind it.

What has changed

Re-investigation threshold

We have amended the wording around the re-investigation threshold to clarify that for us to decide a re-investigation is necessary, it must be likely that the re-investigation would lead to a different outcome than the original investigation (for example, gross misconduct, gross incompetence or misconduct which could potentially result in dismissal).

The High Court judgment interpreted the previous wording of the policy as indicating a much lower threshold. It found that any new information or material flaw in the original investigation may have or could have made a difference to the outcome.

This threshold is intentionally set at a high level to ensure that re-investigations are undertaken only in cases where there is a likelihood of a different outcome. Re-opening an investigation has significant implications both for victims and families, and for the officers involved. Subjecting all parties to the disruption and emotional toll of a further investigation, where the likelihood of a different conclusion is minimal, would not be a proportionate response.

Structure of the policy

To improve clarity, we have restructured the policy to follow the chronological stages of the re-investigation process. The revised policy now clearly outlines what a re-investigation involves, the circumstances the policy applies to, and crucially, how decisions are made. To further support transparency, we have also provided clear definitions of what is meant by ‘a material flaw’ and ‘significant new information’.

Decision-making process

The judge found our decision-making convoluted, so we have taken steps to ensure transparency in our decision-making process. The policy now clearly outlines the types of situations that may trigger a case review and explains how internal decisions are made. We have also clarified that each review is tailored to the volume and nature of the material involved, with each indication assessed on its own merits.

The consultation

We are now seeking views on the proposed updates to the policy. In particular, we welcome views on:

• the clarity of the revised policy
• any potential unintended consequences of the proposed changes

Our previous policy can be found here.

Please send your feedback or comments to us by email. You can use the same email address to ask any questions you may have about the consultation.

The consultation closes on Friday 15th August. Your input is valuable and will help shape a policy that is both fair and effective. Thank you for taking the time to contribute.