Information

Pension Forfeiture

The Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC) for Northamptonshire is the Pension Service Authority (PSA) for Northamptonshire Police and is therefore responsible for the submission of applications for pension forfeiture to the Home Secretary. The legislative basis for police pension forfeiture is found in regulation K5 of the 1987 Regulations, regulation 55 of the 2006 Regulations and Chapter 5 of Part 13 to the 2015 Regulations. Each of these regulations contain provisions which allow a PSA to determine forfeiture in cases where either;

• a pension scheme member has been convicted of treason or of offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1939 and has been sentenced to a term (or terms) of imprisonment of at least ten years. or;

• where a pension scheme member has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his or her service as a member of a police force.

The Office of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (OPFCC) also has a policy for Pension Forfeiture which sets out the local process. A copy of the policy can be found on the OPFCC website here. 

Background

 On the 06/03/2024 former PC Matthew Bell (MB) was convicted of one count of Misconduct in Public Office in relation to 10 separate incidents. MB pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to a 2-year Custodial sentence, which was then reduced to 9 months due to his early plea, with immediate imprisonment.

 Pension Forfeiture Process 

The OPFCC applied to the Secretary of State for a certificate of pension forfeiture which was granted on the 31/01/2025. In line with local processes, a Pension Forfeiture Panel Meeting was held by the OPFCC on the 14/04/2025 to determine whether the pension should be forfeited and, if so, to what extent. It should be noted that a maximum of 65% of the pension can be forfeited and that this can be on a permanent basis or for a set period of time. The Pension Forfeiture Panel was Chaired by the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Danielle Stone, along with the OPFCC Chief Executive Jonny Bugg and OPFCC Chief Finance Officer Vaughan Ashcroft. The Panel heard representations made by Northamptonshire Police and by MB both orally and via written submissions. MB contends that the criminal sanction has impacted on his earning capacity and private life and caused the loss of his reputation and career. MB referenced his prior good character and early resignation as mitigation.

Deliberations

During deliberations the Panel considered both representations made to the Panel by MB and from Northamptonshire Police.  The Panel considered the APACCE Pension Forfeiture Guidance and Toolkit; which can be found here. It sets out that an initial benchmark for consideration of pension forfeiture in cases of Misconduct in Public Office is 20% – 65%. The Panel agreed that this a reasonable starting point and noted importance of consistency in decision making that adopting this approach will assist in delivering. The Panel also considered the PFCC Police Officer Pension Forfeiture Policy and Process; the Home Office Guidance on Police pension forfeiture and the relevant guidance set out in Harrinton v Metropolitan Police Authority [A2006 7706] to assist in determining the precise amount, that should be forfeited.

The Panel considered the following specific factors in reaching their decision:

• Public Confidence: it was considered that an offence of Misconduct in Public Office will likely cause more harm to public confidence than to specified victims, however, the Panel noted the vital challenge of rebuilding public trust in policing. The maintenance of public confidence in policing is important. There is a connection between the offence and the officer’s police service and the offence is liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in a public service.

• Seriousness of the offence: The Report prepared by Northamptonshire Police as part of the application for police forfeiture provides details of MB’s convictions at Southwark Magistrates Court on 06/03/2024. He pleaded guilty to the offences and received 2-year custodial sentence, reduced to 9 months due to his early guilty plea. There were multiple incidents which were committed over a period of time whilst MB was a serving police officer and had access to a wealth of confidential police information. The Panel determined that these factors raised the level of seriousness.

The Panel did note that the offences were not committed to aid criminality or for financial gain. It was considered that this provided some mitigation in respect of seriousness.

• Personal Mitigation: The Panel considered the representations made by MB and acknowledged the mitigating circumstances. These included a guilty plea to the offences; early resignation and the adverse impacts already experienced by MB as a result of his conviction.

Determination of the Panel 

The Panel considered their role and responsibilities in line with regulation K5 of the 1987 Regulations and determined, for the reasons set out and having regard to all of the circumstances, that the pension should be subject to forfeiture. The Panel were satisfied that maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of the police is a legitimate and important matter of public interest, which for the general public good justifies overriding the rights of the individual under Article 1, Protocol 1. Forfeiture will be at 15% of the whole pension and will be permanent.

Decision taken

 The Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner has taken the decision that in this case forfeiture will be at 15% of the whole pension and will be permanent.

Details of advice taken 

Professional legal advice has been sought throughout the process to ensure the OPFCC met all its statutory obligations in relation to the pension forfeiture process.