In the operations of South Yorkshire Police (SYP), a complainant’s determined pursuit of accountability has revealed a significant inconsistency in how alleged offences are handled. A pre-action letter sought a mandatory order to require the force to meet its legal obligation: recording an alleged crime. This is no ordinary matter, as the suspects are police officers within the force itself.
The Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) are clear: crimes must be recorded within 24 hours, unless there is a strong, justifiable reason for delay. This process should be applied consistently, based on the allegation and evidence available at the time. However, when the complaint involves police officers themselves, SYP’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) has not followed through the HOCR mandatory crime recording rules, leading to accusations of an abuse of process. The department is required to record such matters without exception, yet this has not occurred, raising serious questions about compliance.
The email exchange we have seen underscores the issue. Case files have been opened with a substantive response anticipated by the end of the week (26th September 2025). A request for a crime reference number without delay has been made several times over several weeks, emphasising that the 24-hour expectation applies to all reports and that police officers are not exempt from the law. The head of legal services has indicated taking further instructions from the PSD, the same department central to the complaint.
This situation highlights a two-tier system: prompt recording for public reports, but hesitation when officers are implicated.
Concerns about the PSD’s handling, including reliance on verified information from involved parties, remain unaddressed. Such practices undermine public trust in the integrity of the complaints process.
The Chief Constable Lauren Poultney is aware of the above issues but has chosen ignore the serious alleged conduct against her own force.
With Judicial Review proceedings on the horizon, the outcome could compel SYP to adhere to its recording duties.
This case serves as a reminder that true accountability requires equal application of the Home Office rules, regardless of who is under scrutiny.
this sort of thing is not exclusive to South Yorkshire. I know of a least one other force that has done the same thing