Wiltshire Police, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal & Anor

A Police Appeals Tribunal reviewing a misconduct panel under rule 4(4)(a) of the Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2008 must first decide whether the panel’s finding or sanction was unreasonable. It may substitute its own view only after reaching that conclusion. The appeal tribunal must assess the reasonableness of the panel’s findings and response, rather than rehear the case or place the facts in the most favourable light for the officer. In police discipline, preservation of public confidence is a primary consideration. Dismissal may be reasonable even where the officer remains capable of operational deployment. Good-character evidence may be relevant both to credibility and to sanction.

A misconduct panel found eight allegations admitted by the interested party and two further allegations proved. It concluded that the cumulative conduct amounted to gross misconduct and ordered dismissal without notice.

The Police Appeals Tribunal allowed the appeal on two factual allegations and substituted warnings for dismissal on the admitted allegations. The Chief Constable sought judicial review, arguing that the Tribunal had exceeded its appellate function and had unlawfully concluded that dismissal was unreasonable. The central issues were the meaning of “unreasonable” under rule 4(4)(a), the Tribunal’s approach to the panel’s findings and sanction, and the relevance of public confidence.

1. The claim was allowed and the Police Appeals Tribunal’s decision was quashed. The decision of the misconduct panel was thereby restored.

2. The court followed the approach in R (Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2012] EWHC 2280 (Admin) and R (The Chief Constable of Durham) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2012] EWHC 2733 (Admin). Under rule 4(4)(a), the Tribunal must ask whether the panel’s finding or sanction was within the range of reasonable findings or sanctions on the material before it. It cannot substitute its own approach merely because it would have evaluated the evidence or sanction differently.

3. The Tribunal was entitled to find allegations 6 and 7 unreasonable. The panel had wrongly excluded good-character evidence from its assessment of credibility. In relation to allegation 7, the panel had also reformulated the allegation from breach of policy to discreditable conduct without giving the officer a fair opportunity to address that course.

4. In relation to the eight admitted allegations, the Tribunal unlawfully approached the matter as a rehearing. It substituted its own assessment of the seriousness and mitigating features instead of deciding whether the panel’s assessment was reasonable. The panel was entitled to focus on the nature of the language and conduct, even though much of it had not entered the public domain.

5. Public confidence in the police is a primary purpose of professional misconduct proceedings. The Tribunal’s decision contained no indication that this material consideration had been taken into account. The principles stated in R (Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6 and Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police [2012] EWCA Civ 2012 supported that conclusion.

6. There is no general principle that dismissal is unavailable where an officer remains “operational”. The panel’s finding that the conduct was incompatible with the role of a professional police officer was sufficient in the circumstances.

7. The Tribunal’s pursuit of consistency between police forces was not itself objectionable, but the judge observed that such reliance requires caution and, ordinarily, fuller reasoning. That issue was not a separate ground of challenge.

• Misconduct Panel: found ten allegations admitted or proved, characterised the cumulative conduct as gross misconduct, and ordered dismissal without notice.
• Police Appeals Tribunal: allowed the appeal in relation to two allegations and substituted warnings for dismissal on the remaining allegations.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the Tribunal’s decision. The panel’s decision was restored.