An upheaval of the police misconduct system will hand too much power to chief constables and reduce expert lawyers who currently run hearings to "glorified secretaries", it is feared.

Barrister John Bassett, president of the National Association of Legally Qualified Chairs (LQCs), says the Home Office's proposed reforms will result in police chiefs effectively "marking their own homework" and could stop the process being open, fair and transparent.

Under the changes, which are expected to become law next spring, chief constables or their deputies will replace independent lawyers, called LQCs, in chairing misconduct panels.

Any officer found to have committed gross misconduct will be sacked automatically, while police and staff will be dismissed if they fail new tougher re-vetting checks.

The reforms, which are designed to root out and swiftly remove corrupt and rogue officers, have been welcomed by top cops, including former Avon & Somerset Chief Constable Andy Marsh who is now the College of Policing chief executive.

But the force's Police Federation last week criticised them, saying it will turn misconduct hearings into kangaroo courts with police chiefs made judge and jury with the power to sack officers "on a whim".

Now Mr Bassett has urged the Government to retain the current system and scrap the proposals, which include downgrading LQCs, who were introduced seven years ago to ensure independence in decision-making, to an advisory role on panels hearing allegations of wrongdoing.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service he said: "The reforms are a retrograde step.

"They present a danger of going back to the pre-2016 position where police marked their own homework.

"My greatest concern is that the process will no longer be open, transparent and fair."

Mr Bassett said there was no reference to independent panel members – lay members of the public who sit on panels alongside an LQC and a senior police officer – in the Home Office press release announcing the plans and that this was "conspicuous by its absence".

He said decisions would be made by a majority of a panel but that panels would have an "in-built police majority".

"We always acknowledged there was room for improvement and we don't maintain that LQCs always get it right, which is why there is a process of appeal and judicial review," Mr Bassett said.

"As far as fairness is concerned, it's not a matter of being pro- or anti-police officers – under the present system officers cannot bring claims for unfair dismissal.

"But the present system where we have an LQC is the best or nearest thing there is to ensuring dismissals are not unfair because we carry out detailed analysis of a case and make a decision based on that.

"If we are just going to be glorified secretaries then it remains to be seen how many LQCs will wish to continue in that role."

He said the proposed introduction of automatic dismissals for officers found guilty of gross misconduct, unless there are "exceptional circumstances", was the opposite of the present system where LQCs followed the College of Policing guidance to first consider the least severe outcome, such as a written warning, and only work their way up to a sacking if a more lenient sanction is deemed not appropriate.

Mr Bassett also fired back at Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley who last month branded LQCs "fundamentally soft" for keeping officers who commit gross misconduct in their force.

He said: "That is a disgraceful slur and it totally ignores the process we are required to undertake.

"We don't make unilateral outcome decisions, they are made by the panel as a whole."

He said the accusation that LQCS were soft in letting police officers keep their jobs was "window dressing" to divert attention from cases such as Wayne Couzens, who raped and murdered Sarah Everard, and serial rapist David Carrick, both of whom were serving officers in the Met when they committed their violent crimes.

Mr Bassett said neither of them faced police misconduct hearings before they were arrested and convicted.

The Home Office has said LQCs brought "crucial independence" to police disciplinary hearings and that it was important to retain that "fair and transparent system".

But it said it recognised the need for chief constables to have a greater say, including chairing misconduct cases, and that the reforms struck the right balance.