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

Honesty and integrity are distinct professional standards. Integrity is broader than honesty, so conduct may lack integrity without being dishonest. However, findings that overlapping conduct arose from mistake and engaged no lack of integrity cannot reasonably coexist with an unexplained finding that the same conduct lacked integrity. Gross misconduct creates no presumption of dismissal and does not require exceptional circumstances to justify a lesser sanction. A Police Appeals Tribunal remaking a sanction must assess seriousness by reference to culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, keep the purposes of sanction in view, and choose the sanction that best fulfils those purposes. It must give sufficient reasons for that structured assessment.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of a Police Appeals Tribunal decision concerning Police Sergeant Jonathan Flint. A misconduct panel found 12 of 13 allegations proved, characterised the conduct as gross misconduct and dismissed him. The Tribunal allowed his appeal against sanction, found aspects of the panel’s reasoning unreasonable and unfair, and substituted an 18-month final written warning.

The High Court considered challenges concerning the distinction between honesty and integrity, the Tribunal’s treatment of the panel’s factual findings, material unfairness under the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012, and the legality of the substituted sanction.

Claim allowed in part. The Tribunal was entitled to remake the sanction, but its final written warning decision was quashed and the sanction issue was remitted for fresh determination.

1. The Tribunal did not misdirect itself on honesty and integrity. The concepts are distinct, but the panel had addressed integrity as well as honesty and had found no lack of integrity in relation to the overlapping allegations. Its finding of lack of integrity on allegation 11 was therefore apparently inconsistent and inadequately explained. A hypothetical improper motive would have involved both dishonesty and lack of integrity, so the distinction did not rescue the panel’s reasoning.
2. The Tribunal’s decision to quash the integrity finding was not irrational. Although a logically coherent reconstruction of the panel’s reasoning was possible, the panel had not supplied it. The Tribunal was entitled to regard the findings as unclear and open to misinterpretation. It had not quashed the primary factual finding that the officer’s main purpose was to facilitate the bailiff’s entry; it had quashed the unexplained legal conclusion that this established lack of integrity.
3. Judicial review of a Tribunal decision is supervisory, not appellate. The claimant had to establish public-law error. The Tribunal could substitute its own view only after finding the panel’s approach or conclusions unreasonable, or identifying material unfairness under the applicable rules. The authorities on this approach included R (Chief Constable of Dorset) v PAT & Salter [2011] EWHC 3366 (Admin), Chief Constable of Northumbria v PAT & Barratt [2019] EWHC 3352 (Admin) and R (Chief Constable of Durham) v PAT & Cooper [2012] EWHC 2733 (Admin).
4. The Tribunal’s finding of material unfairness concerning PC Elliott’s evidence was irrational because it gave no adequate reasons identifying the unfairness. The evidence, including the Regulation 36 determination and PC Elliott’s own evidence, supported the panel’s conclusion that the senior officer’s conduct influenced him.
5. The panel had materially misdirected itself by treating dismissal as presumptive whenever gross misconduct was found and requiring exceptional circumstances for a lesser sanction. Gross misconduct does not make dismissal automatic. Once the rule 4(4) gateway was met, the Tribunal could remake the sanction on a clean-slate basis under section 85(2) of the Police Act 1996.
6. When remaking sanction, the Tribunal had to follow the structured approach in the Police Misconduct Proceedings Guidance on Outcomes: assess seriousness by culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors and record; keep the purposes of sanctions in view; and select the sanction that most appropriately fulfils those purposes. Its brief reasons did not perform that assessment. The sanction was therefore quashed and remitted, based on the panel’s findings except for the quashed finding on allegation 11.

1. Police Misconduct Panel. After a misconduct hearing, the Panel found 12 of 13 allegations proved, treated the conduct as gross misconduct and imposed dismissal.
2. Police Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal against sanction, found aspects of the Panel’s reasoning unreasonable and unfair, and substituted an 18-month final written warning.
3. High Court (Administrative Court). On judicial review, the Tribunal’s power to remake the sanction was upheld, but its sanction decision was quashed and remitted for a fresh determination.