The Fulford/Godwin Review: What Does It Mean for Police Accountability?

In October 2025, the UK government published a rapid review led by Sir Adrian Fulford and Tim Godwin (“The Fulford/Godwin review”). The review looked at how police accountability works in practice.

The review’s recommendations, and the government’s response to them, have significant implications for those seeking justice after police misconduct and deaths involving police use of force.

What Did the Review Examine?

1. How the lawfulness of police use of force is assessed in police misconduct proceedings, and
2. The standard of proof for unlawful killing conclusions in inquests.

The government’s response to these recommendations is extremely worrying, as it will weaken the mechanisms for holding the police to account.

1. Changes to Use of Force in Misconduct Proceedings

What Is Changing?

The review recommends fundamentally changing how police use of force is assessed in misconduct cases. Currently, misconduct panels apply the civil law test, but the proposed change would introduce the criminal law test instead.

Under the criminal test, when an officer uses force, they must have an honest belief that it was necessary, even if that belief is mistaken. The question becomes: did the officer genuinely believe force was necessary? Not: was that belief reasonable in the circumstances?

This change will reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in R (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. That case arose from the 2015 fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker by a Metropolitan Police firearms officer. The Supreme Court unanimously held that disciplinary panels must apply the civil (objective) test: even if an officer’s belief was honestly held, a disciplinary panel must ask whether that belief was reasonable in all the circumstances. Further, applying this test, the use of force must also be proportionate and no more than the minimum necessary to achieve the aim.

Why Does This Matter?

The change to the criminal standard represents a concerning weakening of police accountability, as the criminal test is a much higher bar for challenging police use of force in misconduct proceedings.

Consider the following scenario: a police officer shoots somebody because they honestly believed that person would harm them. However, racial bias influences the officer’s belief . Though the officer’s belief may be honestly held, the reasonableness of that belief should clearly come under question. Under the criminal test, however, there is no scope for a misconduct panel to assess or challenge that.

This is not a positive picture, given the well-documented racial discrimination in cases involving police use of force.

What Might the Change Mean for Victims?

The practical effect of this change could be significant:

Harder to secure misconduct findings: The focus shifts from whether an officer’s mistaken belief was reasonable to whether it was honestly held – a subjective assessment that is far more difficult to challenge.

Civil claims against the police remain available: The change still allows victims to bring civil claims for assault, battery, discrimination and/or human rights breaches. These claims will continue to apply the civil standard of proof and an objective assessment of whether the force was reasonable.

However, the change may mean:

• Fewer misconduct findings that can support a civil claim
• Greater emphasis on evidence such as CCTV, body-worn video and witness testimony
• A greater need to challenge the credibility and consistency of the officer’s account
• More strategic reliance on civil proceedings and inquests as accountability mechanisms.

For victims of police misconduct, it is important to secure early legal representation to preserve evidence and advise on the most effective routes of challenge.

2. Standard of Proof for “Unlawful Killing” Conclusions in Inquests

What Does the Review Propose?

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire (2020), coroners and juries currently apply the civil standard when deciding whether to return an unlawful killing conclusion in inquests. This means they may record an unlawful killing conclusion if satisfied that it is “more likely than not” that it occurred.

The Fulford/Godwin review has now recommended returning to the criminal standard (“beyond reasonable doubt”).

This is not yet law. The government has announced it intends to carry out a public consultation on the standard of proof for unlawful killing in inquests. More detail will be published in due course, and it is vital that the government hears from people and organisations who will be affected by this decision.

What Could the Change Mean for Bereaved Families?

A return to the criminal standard would make it harder to achieve unlawful killing conclusions in inquests.

It’s important to remember that inquests are not criminal trials. Their purpose is to establish the truth about how and why someone died, and to examine systemic failings. Raising the threshold risks:

• Making unlawful killing conclusions a rarity, even where evidence of serious failings is compelling.
• Placing a heavier burden on families, who can already face significant barriers to effectively participating in the process.
• Increasing institutional defensiveness from police forces and other state bodies.
• Narrowing the scope of public accountability in deaths involving the state.

These changes would represent a significant step backwards for families seeking truth and justice.

How Can We Help?

At Saunders Law, we represent families throughout the inquest process, as well as in any related legal action that may follow. We work to make sure bereaved families’ voices are heard and concerns raised, all relevant evidence is considered, and that accountability is pursued wherever it is due.

Article 2 inquests remain a vital mechanism for bereaved families to achieve justice, and they can have numerous positive outcomes. For example, juries can return detailed narrative conclusions, which can be critical of the actions of the police and other public authorities. Further, coroners issue Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) reports, which can highlight systemic failings and drive institutional change. However, it is important that they have the right evidence presented to them in the most effective way.

This is where early, specialist advice becomes essential.

Contact our team today on +44 (0)207 632 4300 or via our online enquiry form. We’re happy to speak with you confidentially and without obligation.