Backing Papers

Section 8: OPCC CEO Report

Para #2.5 p50 of the GCC backing papers.

On the 05 March 2026 it was reported in the local press that the second gross misconduct investigation by the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) had concluded that there was no case to answer. The following statement was issued by the IOPC:

Our investigation into Gloucestershire Constabulary’s Chief Constable (CC) Rod Hansen and the extent of his involvement in the recruitment process for a member of staff, has now concluded.

In May 2025, CC Hansen was served a gross misconduct notice in relation to the conduct allegations, which was kept under review as our enquiries continued.

We have now determined that CC Hansen has no case to answer, as we found there was insufficient evidence to progress the allegations to either a misconduct meeting or disciplinary hearing.

In October 2025, we determined that the Chief Constable had a case to answer at the level of gross misconduct regarding a separate investigation, which concerned an alleged failure to appropriately act on reports of a data breach. This will now proceed to a misconduct hearing, the date for which is yet to be set.

The first investigation, dating back to October 2024, has concluded that there is a case to answer for gross misconduct. A misconduct hearing is in the process of being organised by the OPCC. In response to the press release from the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) to the local press, PCC Nelson provided the following statement:

I am aware that the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation into allegations involving the extent of Chief Constable Hansen’s involvement in the recruitment process for a member of staff have now concluded, and that they have decided that CC Hansen has no case to answer.

In keeping with the requirements of the Statutory provisions which govern these misconduct investigations, the IOPC recently provided me with their provisional opinion that there was no case to answer and sought my views in my role as the Appropriate Authority prior to reaching their final decision.

I was of the view that there were potentially further and outstanding lines of inquiry that could have been followed, so I indicated that there was insufficient material to enable me to say whether I agreed, or disagreed, with their provisional opinion.

I know the IOPC will have taken my views on board and, as is their right under the Statutory provisions, went on to conclude that there was no case to answer. As the independent body charged with conducting such investigations and reaching such conclusions I, of course, respect the final decision that the IOPC has reached.

As things currently stand, CC Hansen remains suspended from the Force. Given that a gross misconduct hearing for CC Hansen is already due to take place in the near future, involving allegations of a number of breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further at this stage.

As a reminder to the Panel, PCCs have statutory duties within the police complaints system, including responsibilities relating to IOPC-led investigations into chief constables. The IOPC’s statutory guidance sets out how complaints and conduct matters must be handled across forces, while Home Office statutory guidance outlines PCC responsibilities for holding forces to account and overseeing how complaints, conduct matters, and subsequent proceedings are managed.

Statutory guidance explicitly covers the PCC’s responsibility to share decisions with the Panel regarding the suspension of a chief constable during an investigation. However, there is no statutory requirement for PCCs to share “no case to answer” outcomes from IOPC investigations into chief constables. Nevertheless, the PCC and OPCC recognise the important role of the Police and Crime Panel and therefore shared** this information with Panel members following publication of the local press releases.

** I think this is referring to a confidential Teams meeting due on Monday evening (16th March), that I am unable to attend. Or, I guess, it could be merely referring to this backing paper.

I've submitted advanced notice of questions for the Panel meeting on 20th March 2006