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

Personal mitigation must be considered in police disciplinary proceedings, but its weight is limited where gross misconduct threatens public confidence in, or respect for, the police service. That principle is not confined to dishonesty or lack of integrity. The weight given to mitigation depends on the extent to which the particular misconduct threatens public confidence. Dismissal is not inevitable whenever gross misconduct is proved, and the decision remains fact-specific. A Police Appeals Tribunal must decide whether the misconduct panel’s decision was unreasonable, rather than substitute its own view. High rank and long service may aggravate misconduct because they carry enhanced responsibilities; severe pension consequences do not, by themselves, require a lesser sanction.

The claimant, a senior Metropolitan Police officer, admitted five incidents of misconduct. The misconduct panel found that the first four incidents each amounted to gross misconduct and that the allegations collectively justified dismissal without notice. The Police Appeals Tribunal dismissed his appeal, holding that the panel’s decision was not unreasonable.

In judicial review, the claimant argued that the panel and the Tribunal had misapplied Bolton v Law Society and Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset, had given insufficient weight to his personal mitigation, and had imposed a disproportionate sanction. The central issue was whether the limitation on personal mitigation applied only to gross misconduct involving dishonesty or lack of integrity.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court found no error of law in the Police Appeals Tribunal’s decision and no basis for quashing it.
2. The principle derived from Bolton v Law Society and Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset is not limited to dishonesty or lack of integrity. Its underlying reasons apply to all forms of gross police misconduct capable of seriously harming public confidence in or respect for the police service.
3. Personal mitigation remains relevant and must always be taken into account. However, the more seriously the misconduct threatens public confidence and respect, the less weight can be given to personal mitigation. The appropriate sanction is fact-specific. Dishonesty will almost always require dismissal, lack of integrity will often do so, and other breaches of the Standards may also justify dismissal depending on the circumstances.
4. The misconduct panel had considered the claimant’s long service, character evidence, medical evidence, admissions, remorse and pension loss. It was entitled to find that the misconduct was not caused by his medical condition and that his rank was an aggravating factor. If dismissal was necessary to maintain public confidence, its financial consequences could not justify imposing a lesser sanction.
5. The Police Appeals Tribunal correctly applied the test of unreasonableness. It was not entitled to substitute its own view merely because another sanction might also have been reasonable. Given that each of the first four allegations independently amounted to gross misconduct, dismissal was within the range of sanctions reasonably open to the panel.

The claimant was ordered to pay the Police Appeals Tribunal’s costs and the Interested Party’s costs of filing its acknowledgment of service.

The judgment describes no appeal from this decision.