Member

Amendment 426 goes further, as this is about police pensions. One of the many things that will rankle with the public when a police officer is convicted of a very serious offence is the idea that they and their family might continue to enjoy the public sector pension, despite that terrible abuse of trust that led to the serious criminal offence. This probing amendment suggests that a Crown Court, when sentencing an officer, should have the power to order forfeiture of the employer contribution to the pension. The current position is that there can be forfeiture, of course, and it is only the employer contribution, but that is not really done in public but at the discretion of the PCC or other police authority and does not come, therefore, with the same public understanding that would come with a decision by a Crown Court judge. In an infamous case like that of Sarah Everard’s murderer or another serious case of abuse of power, it would arguably be better for public confidence if the Crown Court judge in that sentencing hearing could say, “And, having considered all the pleas in mitigation and the other submissions before me, the public contribution to your pension shall be forfeit. You may of course appeal that in the normal way, as you appeal any part of a Crown Court sentence”.