Salter v The Chief Constable of Dorset

For serious operational dishonesty or impropriety by a police officer, a sanction requiring departure from the force will normally follow. A lesser sanction is possible only exceptionally, and a decision-maker choosing that course must explain why. Personal mitigation remains relevant but has limited weight because public confidence in police integrity is fundamental.

A reviewing court may set aside a specialist tribunal’s sanction where it is one that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. An attempt by an officer with supervisory responsibility to procure the destruction of potentially significant evidence through a junior officer is a grave operational impropriety. Humane motives and an unblemished record could not make retention in the force permissible on these facts.

After the death of a police officer in a road traffic accident, Sergeant Neil Salter instructed a family liaison officer to locate and destroy a mobile telephone from the deceased officer’s vehicle. The telephone potentially contained evidence relevant to the coroner’s investigation. Salter admitted the misconduct, which he said was motivated by concern for the deceased’s family.

A misconduct panel required him to resign. The Chief Constable upheld that sanction on review. The Police Appeals Tribunal allowed Salter’s appeal, reduced him to constable, and ordered his reinstatement. Burnett J, in the Administrative Court, quashed the Tribunal’s decision and substituted dismissal of the appeal.

The issue was whether the Tribunal’s lesser sanction was legally permissible in light of serious operational impropriety and the applicable mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision to reinstate Salter as a constable was one which no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Its sanction was therefore clearly inappropriate and was correctly quashed by Burnett J.

2. Operational dishonesty or impropriety will usually require dismissal or a requirement to resign. Exceptional cases may justify a lesser sanction, but a decision-maker adopting that exceptional course must explain why. A formal self-direction is unnecessary if the decision, read as a whole, demonstrates awareness of the usual consequence and of the exceptional nature of the departure.

3. The analogy with professional disciplinary authorities, including Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, was legitimate. Although police officers differ from solicitors, public confidence in their integrity is indispensable. Operational impropriety by one officer can damage the force’s collective reputation. The assessment must nevertheless remain grounded in the policing context.

4. The Tribunal exceeded the limits reasonably open to it. Salter attempted, while exercising supervisory authority, to procure the destruction of potentially significant evidence through a junior officer. Gathering and preserving evidence is a central police function. His motives were unselfish and the conduct was unplanned, but those matters did not alter its grave character. His past record and personal mitigation had necessarily limited force. The observations in R (Bolt) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2007] EWHC 2607 (QB) were apt by analogy.

5. Stanley Burnton LJ additionally held that a lack of integrity cannot rationally disqualify an officer from supervisory work while leaving him fit to serve as a constable, without an explanation. The Tribunal also failed adequately to explain any realistic future deployment after disclosure of the finding that Salter had attempted to have evidence destroyed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed Salter’s appeal and upheld the quashing of the Police Appeals Tribunal’s reinstatement decision: [2012] EWCA Civ 1047.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (Burnett J) — allowed the Chief Constable’s judicial-review claim, quashed the Tribunal’s decision and substituted dismissal of Salter’s appeal to the Tribunal.
• Police Appeals Tribunal — allowed Salter’s appeal against the requirement to resign, substituted reduction to constable, and ordered reinstatement.
• Misconduct Panel and Chief Constable’s review — the panel required Salter to resign; the Chief Constable upheld that sanction on review.