Chief Constable of Dorset, R (on the application of) v Police Appeals Tribunal

In police disciplinary proceedings, serious dishonesty or lack of integrity in an operational investigation will almost invariably justify dismissal or a requirement to resign. That reflects the need to prevent repetition and, above all, to maintain public confidence in the police service and its collective reputation. Personal mitigation remains relevant, but normally has limited weight and cannot be treated as the principal consideration. The decision-maker must recognise the usual consequence of operational dishonesty and then identify any features making the case exceptional; there is no rigid two-stage test. A Police Appeals Tribunal is an expert appellate body and may reach its own conclusion, but its sanction decision remains reviewable for public law error. The Tribunal’s decision was quashed and the appeal was dismissed.

A misconduct panel required a police sergeant to resign after he admitted instructing a junior officer to locate and destroy a mobile telephone recovered from a fatal road-traffic incident. The Chief Constable upheld that sanction on review. The Police Appeals Tribunal allowed the officer’s appeal, substituted reduction in rank to constable, and directed his reinstatement.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review, alleging irrationality, an incorrect approach to sanction, excessive weight given to mitigation, and insufficient weight given to the earlier decisions. The central issues were the proper approach to sanction for operational dishonesty, the significance of personal mitigation, and the extent to which the Tribunal could differ from the Panel and Chief Constable.

1. Disposition. The Tribunal’s decision was quashed. Under section 31(5) and (5A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court substituted a decision dismissing the appeal to the Tribunal.
2. Applicable approach to sanction. The principles in Bolton v Law Society and Salisbury v Law Society apply with equal force to serious impropriety by police officers in the course of duty. Honesty and integrity in investigations are fundamental to the criminal justice system and to public confidence in policing. Sanctions may be punitive, protective, or both, but their most important purpose is usually maintaining public confidence and the collective reputation of the service.
3. Proven operational dishonesty, including an attempt to destroy, suppress or fabricate evidence, is among the most serious breaches of the Code of Conduct. Dismissal or a requirement to resign will almost invariably be appropriate, although a very small residual category of exceptional cases may justify a lesser sanction. The decision-maker should recognise that usual consequence and identify the features said to make the case exceptional. This is an overall evaluative exercise, not a formal two-stage test. Personal mitigation must be considered, as must any Article 8 rights, but mitigation ordinarily has limited impact.
4. The Tribunal was entitled, as an expert appellate body, to reach its own conclusions and was not required simply to defer to the Panel or Chief Constable. The court’s supervisory jurisdiction was nevertheless engaged if the Tribunal committed a public law error. The Tribunal had kept the earlier views in mind, and no separate error arose from its treatment of them.
5. The likely difficulty of deploying an officer whose misconduct involved tampering with evidence, including the need for disclosure in criminal proceedings, was a relevant sanction factor because it affected public confidence and the officer’s ability to perform ordinary duties.
6. The Tribunal misdirected itself by failing to recognise the usual sanction for operational dishonesty and by giving excessive weight to personal mitigation. Correct application of the legal approach left no lawful basis for a lesser sanction.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. The judgment records that the Police Appeals Tribunal had allowed the officer’s appeal, substituted reduction in rank, and ordered reinstatement. The High Court quashed that decision and substituted dismissal of the appeal to the Tribunal.