Continued professional development (CPD) plays a vital role in the success of investigators, as it enables them to maintain and enhance their professional skills, knowledge and expertise throughout their careers. In the field of investigations, changes in legislation and codes of practice can have a major impact on the way investigations are carried out, and it is therefore crucial for investigators to stay up to date with these developments.
One recent example of the importance of CPD is the changes to the Attorney General Guidelines on Disclosure. These changes, fundamentally altered the way in which investigators must handle and disclose evidence. For investigators who failed to keep abreast of these changes, they may have found themselves conducting investigations in a way that was no longer compliant with the law. This could have led to the exclusion of critical evidence, or even the collapse of a case.
By participating in CPD, investigators can stay informed about the latest advancements in their field and ensure that they are conducting investigations in accordance with best practice guidance. This helps to protect the interests of the investigation, as well as the rights of the subjects of the investigation. In addition, CPD can also provide investigators with the opportunity to develop new skills and techniques, which can improve the quality of their work.
While there is no doubt about the benefits of CPD, there is ongoing debate about whether it should be mandatory for investigators and trainers. On one hand, making CPD mandatory would ensure that all investigators and trainers have the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out their work effectively and in accordance with best practice guidance. This would help to improve the quality of investigations and training, and ensure that investigations are conducted in a manner that is compliant with the law. Furthermore, making CPD mandatory would also send a clear message about the importance of professional development and the commitment of the organisation to quality and professionalism.
On the other hand, some argue that making CPD mandatory would be burdensome and could stifle professional development. Investigators and trainers who are forced to participate in CPD may not be motivated to learn, and may not take full advantage of the opportunities provided by CPD. Furthermore, mandatory CPD could also be expensive for organisations, as they would need to allocate resources to provide training and support for investigators and trainers.In conclusion, while there are arguments for and against making CPD mandatory for investigators and trainers, it is important to strike a balance between ensuring quality and encouraging professional development. Organisations should encourage CPD and provide opportunities for investigators and trainers to participate in professional development, while also recognising that participation should ultimately be a personal choice. At the same time, organisations should also be mindful of their obligations to ensure that investigators and trainers have the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out their work effectively, and should take steps to ensure that investigators and trainers are kept informed about changes to legislation and best practice guidance.
