Categories
Police

Police Barred and Advisory Lists

The police barred and advisory lists, which are managed by the College of Policing, were introduced under the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017. They record officers, special constables, and police staff who have been dismissed for serious misconduct or performance failings.

These Regulations are made under Part 4A of the Police Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”), which was inserted by section 30 of, and Schedule 8 to, the Policing and Crime Act 2017. Part 4A of the 1996 Act requires the College of Policing to maintain two lists; the police barred list (see section 88B) and the police advisory list (see section 88J). These Regulations are made under various powers in Part 4A to make provision supplementing the regime established under that Part.

Explanatory Note – Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2017

Working alongside the advisory list, it prevents unsuitable individuals from re-entering policing roles while enhancing transparency and public trust.

Purpose and Background

The barred and advisory lists were established as part of the government’s commitment to raising standards in policing. They increase accountability for those dismissed and make the discipline system more transparent by publishing details where appropriate.

Both lists are administered by the College of Policing, which receives reports from forces following dismissals under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and Police (Performance) Regulations 2020.

Individuals remain on the barred list indefinitely unless they successfully appeal their dismissal or have their case reviewed after the minimum waiting period. This framework deters poor behaviour and supports a culture of high professional standards.

What the Police Barred List Contains

The barred list includes all officers, special constables, and staff dismissed after formal investigations. For public entries – primarily conduct-related dismissals of warranted officers and special constables – the College publishes the individual’s name, former force, rank, number, date of dismissal, and reason for dismissal.

Police staff and PCSOs appear on an internal version but are not published publicly. The College decides on publication after considering national security, ongoing investigations, or potential harm to individuals. In the vast majority of cases, details are made public.

Public Access and Updates

The police public barred list is searchable and updated monthly, with new names added by the end of the month following dismissal. Entries remain visible for five years from the date of publication before automatic removal from the public version (though the internal record continues).

Dismissals for gross incompetence follow a three-year public visibility period in some contexts, aligned with review rules.

The Advisory List

The advisory list covers individuals who resigned, retired, or left during an investigation, or before allegations came to light. It also includes volunteers whose designated status was withdrawn for conduct or performance reasons. There is no public access to this list.

Forces must consult the advisory list during vetting. While it does not automatically bar employment, hiring organisations must carefully consider the information as part of the recruitment and vetting process.

How the Lists Are Used

All Home Office police forces in England and Wales, Offices of Police and Crime Commissioners, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct are required to check both lists before appointing or employing anyone.

Anyone on the barred list must not be employed in policing roles.

Reviews and Removal from the Barred List

Barred individuals may apply for a review after three years for gross incompetence dismissals or five years for gross misconduct dismissals. Applications are submitted by email to the College of Policing with supporting evidence. The relevant force provides a recommendation, but the College makes the final decision.

Reviews consider the individual’s current suitability, the original circumstances, and the potential impact on public confidence. A successful review does not guarantee re-employment; the applicant must still apply for a role and pass full vetting. The process does not re-examine the original dismissal.

Impact on Policing

By publicly recording dismissals and preventing re-entry of unsuitable personnel, the barred list plays a significant role in maintaining discipline and rebuilding public confidence. Annual statistics published by the College show hundreds of officers added each year, demonstrating the system’s active use.

Overall, the barred and advisory lists represent a balanced approach with firm accountability combined with a structured route for rehabilitation where appropriate.

Check out our articles on Policing by Consent, Police Professional Standards, Police Misconduct Hearings, Police Impartiality, Police Surveillance, Are the Police for Hire ?, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC),Police Public Confidence and Engagement, Crime Reporting, What is a Police and Crime Commissioner ?, Sussex Police, Policing, Police News, Two Tiered Policing, Thought Police, Wasting Police Time, Police Community Support Officers (PCSO), Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.


The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.


Latest Articles


Most Popular


You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 9th June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent