Northumbria Police, R (On the Application Of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal

Judicial review of a Police Appeals Tribunal is supervisory, not an appeal against undue leniency. The court must identify a public-law error. A PAT may substitute its own sanction only after a valid appeal gateway has been established. A misconduct panel’s reasons are read as a whole and in context. Imprecise terminology does not invalidate an outcome where the decisive conduct and public-confidence rationale are clear. A PAT replacing dismissal with a lesser sanction must give adequate reasons. On the particular facts, repeated vile racist language by a serving officer made dismissal the only reasonable response, despite intoxication, mitigation and the fact that the remarks were not heard by those described. The High Court therefore quashed the PAT’s decision and restored dismissal.

The Chief Constable challenged a Police Appeals Tribunal decision concerning a probationary constable who had used repeated racist and offensive language while off duty. A misconduct panel found gross misconduct and ordered dismissal. The PAT upheld the finding of gross misconduct but allowed the appeal against sanction, substituting an 18-month final written warning, reinstatement and professional development on equality and diversity.

The claim for judicial review raised whether the PAT was entitled to find the panel’s reasoning and outcome unreasonable, whether it had lawfully substituted its own sanction, whether a final written warning was irrationally lenient, and whether the claim had been brought promptly.

Claim succeeded. The High Court quashed the PAT’s decision on outcome and replaced it with the panel’s decision of dismissal. New evidence not before the PAT was disregarded.

1. Judicial review and the appeal gateway. The Administrative Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over a PAT and must identify a public-law error. It must guard against an effective undue-leniency appeal. Under the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012, the test of unreasonableness is less demanding than Wednesbury, but a PAT cannot substitute its own view until a valid appeal gateway has been established. The approach in R (CC of Cleveland) v PAT & Rukin [2017] EWHC 1286 (Admin) and R (on the application of the Chief Constable of Durham) v Police Appeals Tribunal and Cooper [2012] EWHC 2733 (Admin) was applied.
2. Ground 1. The PAT was wrong to find that the panel’s reasons left considerable uncertainty about the outcome. Read as a whole, the panel clearly identified the repeated racist language as the critical reason for dismissal and explained its effect on public confidence and the reputation of the police service. The expression unconscious discrimination was imprecise, but in context referred to discriminatory language used in circumstances including intoxication, lack of inherent racist values and an out-of-character incident. It did not amount to a finding under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 or add a new charge.
3. Reasons for substitution. The PAT criticised the panel for inadequate reasoning but itself gave no adequate reason for replacing dismissal with a final written warning. That failure was an error of law. Under sections 31(5) and 31(5A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, substitution was permissible because, without the error, only one decision was available.
4. Ground 2. Alternatively, the final written warning and diversity-training recommendation were irrationally lenient. The repeated use of vile, offensive and racist language was not a single slip. Although the officer’s personal mitigation was significant, retaining her would seriously undermine public confidence and the reputation of the police service. The principles in R (on the application of Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2016] EWHC 2708 (Admin), Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police [2012] EWCA Civ 1047 and Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 2 All ER 486 supported that conclusion.
5. Promptness. The claim complied with the separate promptness requirement in rule 54.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Alternatively, the short period of delay was excused and time extended because of careful preparation, limited prejudice and the public importance of the issue, applying SSHD v Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482.

1. Police Appeals Tribunal: On 25 March 2019, with written reasons dated 11 April 2019, the PAT upheld the gross-misconduct finding but allowed the appeal against dismissal, substituted an 18-month final written warning and directed reinstatement with back pay.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): On judicial review, the PAT’s decision on outcome was quashed and the misconduct panel’s dismissal was restored. The challenge was held prompt, or time was extended alternatively.