Chief Constable West Midlands Police, R (on the application of) v Panel Chair, Police Misconduct Panel & Anor

A police misconduct panel must apply the prescribed three-stage approach when determining sanction. It must assess seriousness, recall the purposes of disciplinary sanctions, and select the sanction that best fulfils those purposes. Compliance is substantive, not a tick-box exercise.

Seriousness requires consideration of culpability, harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors. The panel must engage with material evidence of actual harm. After considering personal mitigation, it must return to the public purposes of maintaining confidence and professional standards, deterring misconduct and protecting the public. Personal mitigation must not displace those purposes.

A police misconduct panel found that a long-serving officer had committed gross misconduct by using racist stereotypes, making racist comments and mimicking an Asian accent during a workplace conversation. It imposed a final written warning rather than dismissal.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of the outcome decision. The claim alleged that the Panel had failed to apply the structure required by the applicable outcomes guidance, disregarded evidence of actual harm to minority ethnic colleagues, placed unlawful weight on mitigation and reached irrational conclusions. The central issue was whether the Panel's reasoning demonstrated lawful application of the required disciplinary framework and justified the sanction imposed.

1. The claim succeeded. The Outcome Decision was quashed and the question of sanction was remitted to a differently constituted Police Misconduct Panel: paras [65]–[67].

2. A misconduct panel must determine sanction through three stages: assessing the seriousness of the misconduct; recalling the purposes for which disciplinary sanctions are imposed; and selecting the sanction that most appropriately fulfils those purposes given the seriousness of the conduct. The decision need not cite or separately discuss every passage of the guidance. Its reasoning must nevertheless demonstrate substantive application of the prescribed structure, with proper primacy given to public confidence: paras [38], [51], [53].

3. An assessment of seriousness requires consideration of culpability, harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Some overlap is permissible and relevant matters must not be double-counted. A generous approach may be taken to a panel's reasons, but the decision must demonstrate engagement with factors arising from the evidence: paras [56]–[60]. The Panel had addressed reputational risk but failed to engage with material, apparently unchallenged evidence of actual harm suffered by minority ethnic colleagues. That omission was an error: paras [59]–[62].

4. The Panel could take account of contextual mitigation, early admissions, regret and remedial steps. Its finding that the officer had been provoked into using racist stereotypes and mimicking accents was, however, irrational. Its reliance on contextual mitigation was also inconsistent with its earlier finding that such mitigation was limited: para [63].

5. After considering personal mitigation, the Panel had to return to the public purposes of sanction: maintaining public confidence and the reputation of the police service, upholding standards and deterring misconduct, and protecting the public. Merely reciting those purposes earlier was insufficient. The reasoning viewed sanction principally through the officer's personal mitigation and failed to address public confidence arising from misconduct that had already occurred: para [64].

6. Section 31(2)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 did not justify refusing relief. A finding of irrationality prevented the court from being satisfied that the same outcome was inevitable. Even apart from irrationality, the court could not predict the Panel's assessment of actual harm or its sanction after correctly addressing the purposes of the regime: para [66].

• High Court (Administrative Court): The judicial review claim was upheld. The Outcome Decision was quashed and sanction was remitted to a differently constituted Police Misconduct Panel.
• Police Misconduct Panel: The Panel found gross misconduct but imposed a final written warning. Its finding of gross misconduct remained in place.