Sussex Police & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Police Appeals Tribunal & Anor

On judicial review of a Police Appeals Tribunal decision, the question is whether the misconduct panel imposed a sanction outside the range of reasonable sanctions on the material before it. Professional misconduct proceedings primarily protect public confidence in, and the reputation of, the profession; they are not principally punitive. Personal mitigation therefore has limited weight where the misconduct concerns authority, respect, courtesy, or police duties and responsibilities. A tribunal must address material aggravating features and the public-confidence purpose when reviewing a sanction. Fresh evidence must be explained and linked to the outcome before it can justify interference. Where the tribunal’s decision is quashed, remission should ordinarily be to the appropriate specialist body. In this case the matter was remitted to the original misconduct panel to consider the fresh psychiatric evidence with all the other evidence.

The Chief Constable challenged the Police Appeals Tribunal’s decision to overturn a misconduct panel’s dismissal of a police constable for gross misconduct and substitute a final written warning. The Tribunal had found the original decision unreasonable because of disparity with the sanction imposed on a senior officer, an alleged inaccurate assessment of character and personal insight, and the possible mitigating effect of a fresh psychiatric report.

The Administrative Court considered whether the Tribunal had applied the correct test of unreasonableness, properly assessed the panel’s reasoning and the fresh evidence, and acted lawfully in substituting its own sanction rather than remitting the matter.

1. Applicable test. The court conducted a review of a review. The issue was whether the Tribunal’s decision was vitiated by an error of law or fell outside the range of decisions legitimately open to it, having regard to the panel’s decision. Under rule 4(4)(a), a finding or sanction is unreasonable if it falls outside the range of reasonable findings or sanctions on the material before the panel.
2. Sanction and disparity. The misconduct panel was entitled to distinguish the officers. The constable had acted directly and oppressively towards a vulnerable woman, whereas the senior officer’s misconduct concerned supervisory failures. The panel was also entitled to attach weight to differences in character evidence, self-awareness and the risk of recurrence. Different sanctions did not make the constable’s dismissal unreasonable.
3. Public confidence and mitigation. The primary purpose of professional misconduct proceedings is preserving public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police. Personal mitigation has limited weight where the misconduct concerns authority, respect and courtesy or duties and responsibilities. The Tribunal failed to address the numerous aggravating features identified by the panel and failed to apply the public-confidence purpose.
4. Fresh evidence. The Tribunal did not adequately explain how the psychiatric evidence about the deceased woman’s personality disorder and the difficult circumstances affected the constable’s compliance with the Standards of Professional Behaviour or the panel’s aggravating findings. Its conclusion that the evidence could materially affect the sanction was therefore legally flawed.
5. Relief. The Tribunal’s decision was quashed. The matter was remitted to the original misconduct panel, which was to consider the fresh evidence together with all the other evidence. The decision to dismiss was upheld subject to that reconsideration, with an appropriate deeming provision if required. Costs were awarded to the claimant, subject to agreement or written submissions on quantum.

• Police Appeals Tribunal: substituted a final written warning for dismissal without notice after finding the misconduct panel’s decision unreasonable.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the Tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter to the original misconduct panel for consideration of the fresh evidence.