Verity, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police

Under regulation 13 of the Police Regulations 2003, a probationary constable may be dismissed where the chief officer considers that the constable is not likely to become an efficient constable. The assessment is not confined to criticism of performance or ability. Restrictions arising from past conduct may be relevant if they would prevent the constable from working productively across the duties of the office. On judicial review, the court supervises legality rather than substituting its own assessment. Relevant safeguarding material may be considered, including views from partner agencies, provided the probationer has a fair opportunity to understand and answer the case. Regulation 13 does not require a judicial-style hearing or oral evidence, but fairness requires notice of the case, an opportunity to make representations and reasons for the decision.

The claimant, a probationary constable, challenged the Chief Constable’s decision to dispense with his service under regulation 13 of the Police Regulations 2003. The decision followed his acquittal by majority verdict on six criminal counts involving alleged sexual touching of children, with the jury unable to agree on two further counts and formal not-guilty verdicts being entered.

The Chief Constable considered that safeguarding concerns required significant restrictions on the claimant’s deployment, including restrictions on independent patrol and dealing with children. The claimant argued that regulation 13 was unavailable because his performance had not been criticised, that irrelevant professional opinions had been considered, and that he had not received a fair hearing. The central issues were the meaning of an inefficient constable, the relevance of safeguarding material, and the procedural requirements of regulation 13.

1. Regulation 13 issue. The application was dismissed. The ordinary meaning of “efficient” was working productively with minimum wasted effort or expense. Regulation 13 was therefore not limited to shortcomings in performance. A chief officer could consider whether restrictions arising from a probationer’s past would prevent substantial parts of the duties of a constable from being performed productively.
2. The Chief Constable was entitled to conclude that the claimant could not, for the foreseeable future, patrol independently or deal singly with children. The resulting restrictions could make it difficult to complete probation and assess the core competencies of the office. The conclusion that the claimant was not likely to become an efficient constable was therefore lawful.
3. The decision was not an appeal on the facts. The court’s function was to ensure that the decision-maker acted within lawful limits. Factual challenge was confined to recognised public-law grounds such as irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness. The Chief Constable was also entitled to substantial deference because of his knowledge of the duties and risks involved in policing.
4. Relevant considerations. The Chief Constable was entitled, and indeed required, to obtain a complete picture of the claimant’s ability to perform police duties. The views of a multi-agency safeguarding body, and other material concerning possible risks to children, were relevant. Their weight was for the Chief Constable, after the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations.
5. Fair hearing. Regulation 13 prescribed no particular procedure and did not require oral evidence or a judicial-style hearing. Fairness required the probationer to know why regulation 13 was invoked, understand the case against him, make representations, and receive reasons. Those requirements were satisfied because the claimant received the documents, made written and oral representations through his representative, and was given reasons.

First-instance judicial review decision. The judgment does not state any subsequent appellate history.