Listen to this article
The misconduct case involving PC Mohammed Bhatti, formerly of the Metropolitan Police Service, has drawn renewed attention to the role of police vetting and the consequences of non-disclosure within modern UK policing. The case did not centre on criminal convictions but on whether a serving officer had met the strict requirements of honesty and transparency demanded during mandatory vetting reviews.
Bhatti, who had accumulated many years of service after initially joining policing as a Police Community Support Officer, was dismissed without notice following a public misconduct hearing. The panel concluded that he had committed gross misconduct by failing to disclose earlier interactions with police when completing vetting documentation, a process designed to assess integrity, risk, and suitability rather than criminal guilt alone.
At the heart of the hearing was Bhatti’s omission of a 2008 arrest following a road traffic collision, where he was detained on suspicion of driving with excess alcohol before being released with no further action once it was established he was under the legal limit. The panel also considered his failure to declare a later police investigation between 2011 and 2012, which involved allegations made by a former partner and led to a search of his property. While that investigation resulted in no charges, the misconduct panel found that it nonetheless fell squarely within the scope of matters that must be declared under vetting rules.
In reaching its decision, the panel rejected Bhatti’s explanations that he had misunderstood the vetting questions or believed the incidents were irrelevant because they did not result in criminal proceedings. The panel concluded that an experienced officer would have understood the importance of full disclosure and that the omissions amounted to breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, including honesty and integrity, discreditable conduct, and adherence to orders and instructions.
The outcome—dismissal and placement on the national barred list—means Bhatti is permanently prohibited from serving as a police officer. The sanction reflects how seriously police forces now treat failures of disclosure, particularly amid wider efforts to rebuild public confidence in policing standards and culture.
The case also provides historical context for how police vetting has evolved in the UK. Over the past two decades, a series of reviews, inspectorate reports, and high-profile failures have prompted forces to tighten vetting frameworks, broaden disclosure requirements, and place greater emphasis on self-reporting. These reforms were driven by the recognition that policing by consent relies on public trust, and that even historic or unproven matters may be relevant when assessing suitability for a role that carries significant powers.
Importantly, the misconduct finding does not establish that Bhatti committed the offences he was once investigated for, nor does it alter the outcomes of those investigations. Instead, the case underscores a clear principle now embedded in UK policing: that transparency itself is fundamental, and that withholding relevant information—regardless of age or outcome—can be career-ending.
As police forces continue nationwide reviews of vetting compliance and professional standards, the Bhatti case is likely to be cited as a cautionary example. It illustrates how modern policing places honesty at the centre of professional conduct, reinforcing the message that the authority vested in police officers must be matched by absolute openness if public confidence is to be maintained.