R (Chief Constable of Northumbria Police) v (1) Police Appeals Tribunal (2) Barratt

The claim challenged the Police Appeals Tribunal's substitution of a final written warning for the dismissal imposed by a misconduct panel after a probationer constable used repeated racially offensive language while intoxicated. The court applied public law review principles to a PAT decision, recognising the limited scope for interference but requiring a public law error to quash a tribunal decision. The Administrative Court concluded the PAT was wrong to find the panel's reasons so deficient as to make the outcome unreasonable; alternatively, even if the PAT was entitled to substitute sanction, the choice of a final written warning was Wednesbury-unreasonable because, on the panel's findings, dismissal was the only reasonable sanction. The PAT decision was therefore quashed and the panel's dismissal reinstated.

The interested party, PC Katie Barratt, a 21‑year‑old probationer constable, used repeated racially offensive language about staff at a takeaway on 14 December 2017 while off duty and intoxicated. Northumbria Police's professional standards department charged her under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (regulations 21 and 22). A misconduct panel (26–27 June 2018) found both allegations proved, concluded the conduct amounted to gross misconduct and dismissed her.

PC Barratt appealed to the Police Appeals Tribunal under rule 4(4)(a) of the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012 on the ground that the disciplinary action was "unreasonable". The PAT (oral decision 25 March 2019; written reasons 11 April 2019) upheld the finding of gross misconduct but allowed the appeal as to outcome, substituting a final written warning of 18 months and ordering reinstatement with back pay.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review, alleging (1) the PAT was not entitled to find the panel's reasons so deficient that dismissal was unreasonable and (2) alternatively, the PAT's substitution of a final written warning was itself irrational because no reasonable tribunal could have imposed anything less than dismissal. The court also addressed timeliness and declined to admit later evidence not before the PAT.

The court reviewed the relevant law, including the distinct (lesser than Wednesbury) test of "unreasonableness" under the PAT rules as explained in authorities (notably Rukin and Cooper) and principles governing judicial review of tribunal decisions. The court held that the panel's reasons made clear the decisive basis for dismissal was the nature and repetition of the racist language and its likely effect on public confidence; the panel's references to "unconscious discrimination" meant discriminatory language uttered in drink and out of character rather than a new, separate charge. Accordingly the PAT was wrong to conclude the panel's reasoning left "considerable doubt" and to substitute its own outcome on that basis. Further, even if the PAT could substitute sanction, the court found that on the panel's findings dismissal was the only reasonable sanction and that the PAT's lesser sanction was Wednesbury‑unreasonable. The PAT decision on outcome was quashed and replaced with dismissal. The court found the claim was brought promptly (or granted an extension of time) and invited the parties to agree consequential orders.

The claim for judicial review succeeds. The Administrative Court quashed the Police Appeals Tribunal's decision on outcome and reinstated the misconduct panel's dismissal. The court held (i) the panel's reasons were sufficient to show dismissal was based on the repeated, highly offensive racial language and its effect on public confidence and (ii) in any event a final written warning was irrational on the facts because no reasonable tribunal could have imposed anything other than dismissal.

Misconduct hearing before a police misconduct panel (26–27 June 2018) which found gross misconduct and dismissed PC Barratt. Appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal under the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012; PAT heard the appeal (oral decision 25 March 2019; written reasons 11 April 2019) and substituted a final written warning for dismissal. Judicial review permission granted by HH Judge Saffman on 8 August 2019. Judgment of the Administrative Court: [2019] EWHC 3352 (Admin) (Freedman J) (6 December 2019).