Police officer forfeits pension for professional misconduct.

[Al R]

It isn't unknown, but it's certainly unusual. A precedent that seems to present a new moral threshold, and another nail in the public sector pension coffin. Weapons no longer as tight on retirement planning, and a novel way to save money for sure. It'll be interesting to see which other schemes take this up, over how long and to what extent; it's one more regulatory risk to take seriously.

A chief constable was praised yesterday for taking the rare step of naming a police officer who has been stripped of his pension for misconduct. Jasbir Dhanda was jailed in 2012 after trawling the police computer to find a vulnerable woman for sex. He will forfeit 40 per cent of his pension because he abused public trust in the force.

Policeman?s pension cut over sex with vulnerable prostitute | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4346925.ece)

(£)

[The Old Fat One]

Al R

I don't think it is unusual for the Police, I believe it is written into their terms and conditions as a special case. I've heard of it many times before.

That said, it would not surprise me in the least if this starts to creep in across the public sector as you imply.

[OvertHawk]

Is it unreasonable for those who are employed to serve the public - particularly in roles where trust is implicit such as the police - to expect that if they commit an egregious abuse of that trust they will have the employers contribution to their pension withdrawn? (They will still keep the percentage of the pension that was based on their own contributions).

I don't see it as an attack on public sector pensions - I see it as a legitimate, logical and overdue consequence for those who commit criminal acts whilst they are being paid to protect their communities.

As for it "saving a bit of money" - Well that's a good thing isn't it? Who would you rather have the money - your local police service or a convicted criminal sex offender?

As for it being "weapons free on the worker" - That's a tad melodramatic don't you think?

[Lima Juliet]

There are plenty of examples of loss of Armed Forces Pension, here is one:

Dorchester Crown Court heard that a retired Army major will lose his pension after pleading guilty to running a brothel and living off immoral earnings. Ian Brazier, defending Michael Chubb of Gold Hill, Shaftesbury, Dorset, told the court: "He is a former Army officer and a conviction means he will lose his Army pension."

I took a chap for Court Martial a few years ago and he was within an ace of losing his pension having been sent down to the Military Correction Facility and thence onto civvy prison.

LJ

[Jayand]

Why should pensions be sacrosanct? If you have done something so bad then why not lose it?

[Al R]

Overthawk,

I edited it because, yes, you're right.. it was. You caught my early edition!

But pensions are no longer as tight, which is what I changed it to and my points were wider than a rapist keeping a pension. If someone screws up, after, say, 5 years of employment and if the transgression warranted it, then there might be a case for reclaiming employer contributions. What next though, someone who has an ISA or personal pension gets stung with a tax bill? The courts only recently, saw a creditor cleared off for trying to crowbar open a debtor's pension. The issue here will be the amount and the nature of the transgression (which I am not defending) and the rate at which action increases and by how low the benchmark drops.

I have no doubt that servicemen and women who leave as deferred pensioners will, in time, soon find their benefits under threat. But this is a new and gradually increasingly emerging precedent and one that is being placed into law. It is a punishment which should be benchmarked and not, as will happen, be diluted over time. You need to see how government sentiment and retirement legislation is evolving only to realise that the worker will have far fewer rights in the future - the issue isn't about this particular bloke, but more about what's coming down the tracks.

It also affects families, partners, dependents and children. My further point, and further to that, is that forfeiture is now seen increasingly as ripe for further action. Is that a good thing, in principle? No. It undermines faith in the system, it creates uncertainty in a workforce and if you see the incessant drip of sentiment, then yes.. it is certainly another nail in the coffin of the final salary pension.

Is all of that worth this principle? No. It places innocent people into hardship and does it save any money? No, of course not. More imaginative thinking would possibly place the funds instead, into trust for use by dependents. Because lets face it, the (normally) 'wife of' is going to have no pension herself because she has no pension, the kids will suffer and the family will be on benefits 20 years down the line anyway. Is that all fair? And please, let's not go down the 'he should have kept his fly zipped', because of course he should.. but let's try and see beyond that.

I don't see it solely, as an attack on public sector pensions either. But neither do I see it as proportionate, or as you states a legitimate, logical and overdue consequence. It is legitimate only by regulation, and doing what is correct is not always doing what is right (to use a nice turn of phrase I read elsewhere here this morning). Retirement planning and pension provision should be seen as a distinct micro-issue that is left well alone - it should not be subject to more conventional punishments and measures.

This issue needs more than simplistic binary thinking.

[Al R]

Leon,

Was that Major convicted after he retired and was the offence commited after he retired.. and was it a deferred pension that he lost?

[Lima Juliet]

Al

Full story here: Major ran brothel where his girlfriend worked to pay school fees for her daughter - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1436820/Major-ran-brothel-where-his-girlfriend-worked-to-pay-school-fees-for-her-daughter.html)

[Al R]

Thanks, that's plain seedy. I wonder if the pension angle was an imaginative plea.

[Sloppy Link]

Senior police officer faces jail after fraud scam - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10688873/Senior-police-officer-faces-jail-after-fraud-scam.html)

Loss of pension but her contributions were returned after the necessary adjustments to do with what she will.

SL

[goudie]

Re. the major.

he was caught when a police officer stumbled upon the website.

Stumbled, did he??:rolleyes:

[Willard Whyte]

Can't really see why the major should have lost his pension, he wasn't running the brothel during his time in the army. Presumably its loss is one of the dangers of a non-contributary pension scheme?

Of course I'm sure that not many of us are planning a criminal career after retirement (although see thread re. getting elected).

[Al R]

Of course I'm sure that not many of us are planning a criminal career after retirement (although see thread re. getting elected).

This is why I love PPRuNe.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Name me an MP who has lost their pension.

Of course I'm sure that not many of us are planning a criminal career after retirement (although see thread re. getting elected).

Well, they aren't planning on getting caught

[chopper2004]

LJ,

Good god..an army Major running a brothel.... Did said offender get the ideas of watching this lovely 80s thriller with MIchael Caine and Sigouney Weaver - Half Moon Street whereby the proprietor of the escort agency is called Captain Twilley

Half Moon Street (1986) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091164/?ref_=nv_sr_2)

Cheers

[Hangarshuffle]

If you have retired from whatever service you were in, are on immediate pension and then in a national emergency, are recalled to service.
But you refuse to attend the party.


Would you be then stripped of pension?
I think I can see this coming a mile off (potentially).

[Party Animal]

I have to say that I thought pension rules had changed now to the point of what had been earned was sacrosant? If that isn't the case, then who draws what line between the 70 year old pensioner who can't afford to pay his council tax and the 45 year old raping paeodophile ex wg cdr?

Could both cases have pensions removed?

[Once a Sapper]

My first post after years of lurking - I think the Major's lawyer was trying it on, the quote below is from an AFPS15 consultation paper but I don't believe it was much different under AFPS75/05:

Events enabling forfeiture. If a member, deferred member or pensioner member is convicted of treason or offence(s) under the Official Secrets Act and is sentenced to at least 10 years imprisonment, or is convicted of an offence that the Secretary of State considers to have been gravely injurious to the defence, security or other interests of the State, or has incurred a monetary obligation to the Crown which arises out of criminal, negligent or fraudulent act and is in connection to service in the Armed Forces, benefits may be forfeit.

[The Old Fat One]

^^ spot on, well found and yes AFPS75/05 is the same.

I'm no lawyer, but I do know there is a tariff on all crimes committed in the UK, and if someone is punished outwith that tariff it will be overturned. Loss of pension is a fine of hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps millions. You need to see a conviction for pretty serious crime to inflict this sort of loss and make it stick.

Police are treated differently because they are sworn to uphold the law and told the consequences (greater punitive measures) if they then break it before they take the job.

If a serviceman/woman commits a big enough offence (murder, treason) they will/might lose their pension. If you want to take it away for lesser offences (irrespective of the moral imperative) you'd need to...

a. Change the terms and conditions of service.
b. Make that change one hundred percent transparent.

Then watch 100 percent of all servicemen and women with a brain, and sufficient time served for an immediate pension, PVR.

[Al R]

The problem is, there is no parity within the police - one can only speculate wildly for instance, why these senior officers didn't face charges before being sacked.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/disgraced-cleveland-police-chiefs-sean-7412332

Conspicious by its absence too, is any reference to benefits forfeiture within legislation surrounding the MP pension scheme.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/3253/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/25/pdfs/ukpga_20100025_en.pdf

Once a Sapper - nice to see you coming out of the shadows. That long standing clause is starting to show signs of pressure!

[talking horse]

Hanger shuffle,

I think that if one was recalled from the reserve list but refused, then one probably would (and probably should) loose one's pension (on the basis that the pension is paid for the reserve liability).

However, I suspect the mechanics of it might go like this:

One gets recalled from the reserve list, so stops receiving pension, and starts getting regular pay instead.

One doesn't turn up.

One gets court-martialled (for failing to perform a duty which it was one's duty to perform).

One is convicted by CM and sentenced to something.

One is dismissed from regular service with an appropriate adjustments to one's pension, because one has been a naughty boy or girl.

But I could be wrong.

[mopardave]

This issue needs more than simplistic binary thinking.

Absolutely Al R!

MD

[Numptee]

Re. the major.

Quote:
he was caught when a police officer stumbled upon the website.
Stumbled, did he??

Better than if to come across the website surely?:-)

[ShotOne]

If those who agree with the OP's stance were to glance towards the private sector they'd see that hundreds of thousands of loyal and hard-working employees who haven't abused positions of trust to commit sexual offences have also lost their pensions.

Note to anyone who feels this PC's treatment is unreasonable: don't even think of working for any employer but the government.

[Al R]

Personal or private pensions may have experienced fluctuating values, as they always do, and Monarch employees, I know, have suffered particularly badly with their occupational Final Salary pension going into protection - that's an appalling situation which reflects on the sellers and the buyers. The High Court is currently agonising over dipping into pensions for debt repayment, but that could (and would) apply equally to FS pensions too. However, this particular issue is different to any of the above - this is employment contract risk.

[ShotOne]

Anyone describing people who've had their pensions wiped out as "experiencing fluctuating values" could only work in the financial services industry!

[Al R]

Maybe in the same way that you might describe flying with far more precision than I might. However, for the record, I didn't describe 'people who've had their pensions wiped out as "experiencing fluctuating values"' - you did, and I certainly didn't do it in the manner you seem to be implying. I said that personal pensions experienced fluctuating values - and they do. Those values fluctuate for a number of reasons.

If an occupational pension is hammered, such as Monarch's (http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/monarch-pilots-threatened-with-pension-loss-following-greybull-acquisition/4694481.article), that's a reflection on the ownership of the business and not the financial services sector. Something like Equitable Life though, would be. I think that BALPA also appealed a decision made by the g'ment which affected the BA scheme.. but a management and legislative issue and again, not a financial services one?

[Bigbux]

Surely if someone is punished through the courts, then any additional punishment outside the courts would be challengeable.

It also raises the question that if the Service is able to take action against retired personnel, implying an obligation by retired personnel to the Service, then does the Service therefore have obligations to retired personnel above simply paying the pension?

And how much do you lose for a speeding fine? (a ... uhhh... friend of mine would like to know).

[Al R]

Good moment for a quick update then.

The solicitor who argued that was talking through his or her backside - you can only lose a military pension after discharge for cooperating with the enemy in time of war, treason, buying the Daily Mail etc. But, deep within the bowels of the legislation are a few clauses for the Defence Council that can also arrange to restart it in favour of a next of kin in that event, and financial hardship will be one, and in the event you succumb to sticking a pair of shreddies on your head and two pencils up your nostrils, then your pension may be redirected in favour of a connected and relevant third party.

It seems that generally within the public sector, and each scheme seems to have various indiosyncracies, the circumstances that an individual can be penalised can be via pension retention or forfeiture (slightly different meanings in the context of legislation) depending on whether an individual's actions caused a monetary loss or whether one was simply sacked for breaching some law or regulation. The police pension scheme has the usual treason clauses as well as the ability to have a pension stopped if public confidence was seriously eroded in the service as the result of an officer's actions.

I think that the Rotherham children's sex scandals will also create pressures for the local government pension administrators to act. I have submitted some FoI requests to various agencies overseeing occupational public sector pensions to see if there was a common theme running through them. The one most which will be most interesting is the one relating to MPs. Given that their actions have pretty much made Westminster a laughing stock, and in light of recent legal actions, have any pensions been pinged recently? We'll see.

Almost by way of a metaphor of our times, underscoring the hypocrisy of the whole business, I discovered by chance that the hand wringing, blood letting MP who started asking specific questions of the local government pension scheme (re: Rotherham) was Clive Betts. Understandably, if a senior figure is employed to work in our name and be remunerated accordingly by a decent pension, if he or she falls short through negligence, there should be challenging questions asked about forfeiture. But, 10 years or so ago, Betts was found guilty by the Standards & Privileges Committee of breaching the MPs' code of conduct, by acting "extremely foolishly" and had "damaged public confidence in the integrity of Parliament".

At the risk of reading like Colonel Mustard writing to The Times, it adds fuel to the fire. It's appalling that on one hand, Betts et al can similarly erode public confidence, submit false accounting and manipulate the law (Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper flipped their house a few times - to see that buffoon pontificate about tax is particularly galling) and retain their pension (tbc!). Or worse, if it transpires that those who got actually prosecuted kept their's.

Whilst on the other hand of course, some servicemen were made redundant days shy of getting an immediate pension. The issue for those personnel is that their pension wasn't forfeited or retained, the benefit simply was not realised due to an employment contract being terminated. Flying Lawyer - you need to stare sternly at a transgressing junior barrister who was late for court, summon them to chambers and impress upon them the need to do some pro bono work.