Northumbria Police v Police Misconduct Panel

On judicial review of a police misconduct panel, the court must respect the specialist tribunal’s factual findings and evaluative judgment, but may intervene where its reasoning is irrational, relevant matters are ignored, or reasons are inadequate.

Characterising an officer’s proposal that a witness conceal a relationship as speculative is irrational where the agreement to conceal was concrete and relevant to honesty and integrity. A panel must address each alleged professional standard. In assessing misconduct seriousness, it must evaluate culpability as blameworthiness, together with harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors, and apply the purposes of the misconduct regime. The risk and gravity of potential harm, and the effect on public confidence, may be relevant even where no actual harm is proved.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of a Police Misconduct Panel’s decision concerning a detective constable who had engaged in personal and flirtatious communications with two witnesses in serious sexual offence investigations.

The Panel found gross misconduct in relation to one witness and misconduct in relation to the other. It rejected an allegation of dishonesty or lack of integrity, made no finding on the alleged breach of duties and responsibilities, and imposed a final written warning. The central issues were whether those conclusions were irrational or inadequately reasoned and whether the outcome decision had lawfully applied the misconduct guidance.

1. Judicial review standard. The Panel was a specialist tribunal whose factual findings and assessment of misconduct deserved due weight. Nevertheless, the court could intervene where the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable, relevant matters were omitted, irrelevant matters were considered, or reasons were insufficient. A misconduct tribunal need not give a fully reasoned judgment, but it must explain its findings on key issues sufficiently for the parties to understand the result and assess any challenge.
2. Honesty and integrity. The Panel irrationally treated the officer’s proposal that Witness A conceal any relationship if the case went to court as a speculative observation. The agreement to keep the relationship confidential was a concrete act. It involved a proposed concealment of matters which ought to have been disclosed and placed the officer’s personal interests ahead of his obligations. The Panel was therefore irrational in giving that matter no weight under the standards requiring officers to act honestly, with integrity, and without compromising or abusing their position.
3. Duties and responsibilities. The Panel failed to address the alleged breach of the duty to act diligently in the exercise of duties and responsibilities. That omission was irrational, particularly because the conduct bore directly on the officer’s responsibilities towards witnesses and the effective investigation and prosecution of the case.
4. Seriousness of Witness B conduct. The Panel could not lawfully determine seriousness solely by describing the communications as low-level flirtation. It had to consider the purposes of the misconduct regime, including maintaining public confidence, upholding policing standards, deterring misconduct and protecting the public. The guidance concerning sexual impropriety and abuse of authority was relevant. The Panel’s failure to engage with those matters made its conclusion irrational.
5. Outcome and reasons. The Panel’s reference to the three-stage sanctions process did not cure its failure to assess culpability as a spectrum of blameworthiness, or to identify the risks, potential harm, gravity of harm and public perception relevant to the harm assessment. It also failed to explain any departure from the guidance. The Section 31 argument that the outcome would probably have been the same could not succeed because the defects went to the heart of the decision-making process. The Panel’s decision was quashed and the matter was to be determined by a new panel.

This was an application for judicial review of the Police Misconduct Panel’s decision dated 29 November 2017. Permission was granted on 25 May 2018. The Administrative Court quashed the Panel’s decision and directed that the matter be dealt with by a new panel.