What’s Replacing the British Gymnastics ‘Independent Complaints Process’?
British Gymnastics have just published their new ‘complaints process’, replacing the ICP (Independent Complaints Process) that was introduced in 2020 to deal with the flood of complaints after the first broadcast of Athlete A on Netflix. Sadly, we can’t say that the ICPs, or more precisely the ICP panels were a success. It is difficult to say more as, unlike some other NGBs, British Gymnastics has chosen not to publish Case Panel findings or justifications. Whether they will do so in future seems unclear, but we caution you against breath-holding.
https://www.british-gymnastics.org/safe-and-fair-sport/policies-procedures
We’ve only just begun considering the documents but, of course, the real impact will only be seen once cases start moving through this process. The biggest superficial change is that the system has been split into two. Disciplinary and Safeguarding are now separate. Our initial review reveals that this mainly seems to relate to the treatment of both child and adult witnesses, i.e., those who have been harmed by alleged mal practice. In safeguarding cases it is more likely that a Case Panel will take the form of a paper based process to avoid needing live witness to testify.
The Complaints Management Team (CMT), which is the group that used to consider lower level cases (than those raised to a Case Panel) in both the ICP and BG’s regular complaints process, has now been renamed the Complaints Management Group. The CMG will now include two members who are completely independent from BG.
The Independent Complaints Process (ICP) and the 2026 Safeguarding and Disciplinary Regulations represent two distinct framework eras in British Gymnastics’ complaints and governance structure.
A direct comparison of their purpose, structure, procedures, and oversight highlights key differences across several areas:
1. Purpose and Scope
- Old ICP Process: Established in late 2020 as a temporary, time-limited process specifically designed to address unresolved individual complaints made during the summer of 2020. It focused on historic allegations of mistreatment, abuse, and complaints handling occurring between August 2008 and August 2020, operating alongside the independent Whyte Review.
- New 2026 Processes: Serves as a permanent, permanent regulatory framework (effective October 5, 2026) that replaces the old Complaints & Disciplinary Policy & Procedures. It separates general misconduct from safeguarding through two dedicated, ongoing regimes.
2. Structural Division: Single Framework vs. Dual Regimes
- Old ICP Process: Treated mistreatment, abuse, and complaints handling under one consolidated protocol managed through the Case Management Team (CMT).
- New 2026 Processes: Formally split into two independent sets of regulations with clear boundaries:
- 2026 Safeguarding Regulations: Focuses specifically on assessing risk of harm, determining suitability to work with children or adults, and implementing protective measures.
- 2026 Disciplinary Regulations: Focuses on prosecuting specific acts of Misconduct (e.g., rule breaches, anti-doping violations, contractual breaches, disrepute, or harassment).
- Interplay: Safeguarding Regulations take precedence when safeguarding concerns arise but matters and evidence can be cross-referred between both processes.
3. Governance and Independent Oversight
- Old ICP Process: Delegated full decision-making authority to an external Independent Person (e.g., Christopher Quinlan QC), appointed via Sport Resolutions. The Independent Person chaired the CMT, oversaw investigations, and could not be outvoted by British Gymnastics personnel.
- New 2026 Processes:
- Safeguarding: Managed internally by the Safeguarding Manager and Case Management Group (CMG). Formal Level 2 cases are referred to an independent Safeguarding Panel and Safeguarding Appeals Panel.
- Disciplinary: Managed by a dedicated Resolutions Manager. Charges are adjudicated by an independent 3-person Disciplinary Panel (comprising a legally qualified Chair and at least one member with gymnastics experience) and a Disciplinary Appeal Panel.
4. Case Progression and Hearing Procedures
- Old ICP Process: Cases were assessed by the Independent Person and investigated by Lead/Investigating Officers. The CMT could impose limited remedies or refer serious cases to a 3-member ICP Case Panel for full disciplinary hearings.
- New Safeguarding Process: Uses a two-tier system:
- Level 1: Handles lower-level concerns through guidance, mandatory training, mentoring, formal warnings, or suspensions up to 6 weeks.
- Level 2: Handles serious cases before a Safeguarding Panel. The default process is paper based/written submissions, with live witnesses or oral hearings permitted only in exceptional circumstances to protect witness well-being.
- New Disciplinary Process: Follows a formal legal procedure involving a Notice of Charge served on the participant. The participant has 14 days to reply [47, 11.1]. Hearings before the Disciplinary Panel allow for oral submissions, witness evidence, and cross-examination.
| Feature | Old ICP Process (2020) | New 2026 Safeguarding & Disciplinary Processes |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Temporary, historic process | Permanent governing regulations |
| Structure | Single unified protocol | Separate Safeguarding and Disciplinary regulations |
| Lead Oversight | Independent Person (external legal expert) | Safeguarding Manager (Safeguarding) / Resolutions Manager (Disciplinary) |
| Adjudication Bodies | ICP Case Panel & Appeal Panel | Safeguarding Panel (Safeguarding) & Disciplinary Panel (Disciplinary) |
| Hearing Style | Investigation → CMT review → Case Panel hearing | Safeguarding: Paper-based default (Level 2) Disciplinary: Formal charges & personal hearings |