British Transport Police v Police Appeals Tribunal

An appeal tribunal reviewing police disciplinary sanctions may substitute its own decision only where the original decision was unreasonable. Judicial review examines the legality and rationality of that review, while respecting the specialist tribunal’s expertise. An appeal tribunal must accurately understand the original panel’s findings and determine the relevant circumstances of the use of force, including its lawfulness, any legitimate policing purpose, and any provocation, threat or disturbance affecting the officer’s judgment. A court conducting judicial review cannot impose its preferred sanction. Where material errors may have affected the outcome, the proper remedy is to quash the appeal tribunal’s decision and remit the matter.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of a Police Appeals Tribunal decision concerning the sanction imposed on PC Kerry Reynolds after a misconduct panel found gross misconduct and misconduct. The panel had directed dismissal without notice following findings concerning excessive force, abusive language, interference with an investigation and breaches of confidentiality.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the findings concerning private messages but allowed the appeal against sanction, substituting a final written warning. The Chief Constable contended that the Appeals Tribunal had misunderstood the panel’s findings, acted irrationally, and failed to appreciate aggravating features and the seriousness of the misconduct. The central issues were whether the Appeals Tribunal had made public law errors and, if so, what relief should follow.

1. Approach to the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal correctly directed itself that an appeal was a review, not a rehearing, and that it could substitute its own determination only if the panel’s decision was unreasonable: [2012] EWHC 3288 (Admin). The complaint that it failed to apply that approach in practice was analytically distinct from any error in stating the law.
2. Misunderstanding of the panel’s findings. The Appeals Tribunal acted irrationally and made an error of law by finding that the panel had proceeded on the basis that some use of force was justified. The panel had not made that finding. It had found that the initial contact was unlawful because no power of arrest had been exercised, but had not analysed the events which followed.
3. The panel should have considered whether Mr N’s reaction was lawful self-defence, whether the other officers’ intervention was lawful, whether force was needed to free an officer trapped underneath Mr N, and whether the circumstances involved a legitimate policing purpose or provocation, threat or disturbance. Those matters were relevant to sanction under the College of Policing guidance.
4. Aggravating factors and other misconduct. The Appeals Tribunal was entitled to conclude that there were no aggravating factors of the kind identified in the guidance, apart from the inherent abuse of position involved in a use-of-force case. There was no irrational failure to understand the seriousness of the other findings.
5. Relief. The court could not impose the sanction it considered appropriate. Nor could it conclude that the outcome would highly likely have been substantially the same absent the errors, because the Appeals Tribunal might still allow the appeal against dismissal. The decision was therefore quashed and PC Reynolds’s appeal against sanction was remitted to the Appeals Tribunal.

• Police Appeals Tribunal: Allowed the appeal against the misconduct panel’s sanction and substituted a final written warning. Dismissed the challenge concerning private text messages.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Quashed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision and remitted PC Reynolds’s appeal against sanction to that tribunal.