(1) Where the officer concerned is an officer other than a senior officer, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by the chief officer of police of the police force concerned (but see regulation 2(4A)).
(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) Where the officer concerned is a senior officer, the accelerated misconduct hearing must be conducted by a panel of persons specified in paragraph (4) ....
(4) Those persons are—
(a) a chair, who must be—
(i) where the officer is a chief officer of police, a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, a Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, HMCIC or an inspector of constabulary nominated by HMCIC, appointed by the local policing body; or
(ii) in every other case, a more senior officer than the officer concerned from a force other than the force concerned, appointed by the appropriate authority;
(aa) a person selected in accordance with regulation 28(4)(b); and
(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c) a person selected in accordance with regulation 28(4)(c).
(4A) A legally qualified person is to be appointed by the local policing body as an adviser to the chair and the panel of persons specified in paragraph (4), to be selected in accordance with regulation 28(5B).
(4B) The legally qualified person appointed under paragraph (4A) must provide advice to the panel of persons conducting or to the person chairing an accelerated misconduct hearing on request by the chair in respect of any legal or procedural matters relating to the accelerated misconduct hearing.
(4C) The panel of persons conducting or the person chairing an accelerated misconduct hearing must have regard to any advice given by the legally qualified person in accordance with paragraph (4B).
(4D) Paragraph (4E) applies where the officer concerned is not a senior officer and—
(a) the appropriate authority, when its views were sought in respect of the case under paragraph 23(5A)(a)(i) or (iii) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (action by the Director General in relation to an investigation report under paragraph 22 of that Schedule), expressed a view on the matter that differed from the determination of the Director General under paragraph 23(5A)(b) of that Schedule; or
(b) the appropriate authority notified the Director General under paragraph 25(4D)(a) of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (reviews with respect to an investigation) that it did not accept a recommendation of the Director General under paragraph 25(4C)(c) of that Schedule (reviews with respect to an investigation).
(4E) Where this paragraph applies, the Director General may, within five working days beginning with the day after the day on which the Director General makes the determination referred to in paragraph (4D)(a) or the recommendation referred to in paragraph (4D)(b), make written representations to the chief officer of police who is to chair the accelerated misconduct hearing under paragraph (1) as to whether the chief officer of police should delegate responsibility for chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing to a person from a police force other than the police force concerned.
(4F) The chief officer of police to whom representations have been made under paragraph (4E) must—
(a) have regard to those representations; and
(b) within five working days beginning with the day on which the representations were received, determine whether or not to delegate responsibility for chairing the accelerated misconduct hearing to a person from a police force other than the police force concerned.
(5) For the purpose of section 84(4) of the 1996 Act (power to prescribe “the panel” for the purpose of representation at proceedings), the panel of persons or the person specified by this regulation to conduct an accelerated misconduct hearing is prescribed as “the panel”.