The CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTHUMBRIA POLICE (R on the application of) v POLICE MISCONDUCT PANEL

Judicial review of a specialist police misconduct panel is supervisory, not an appeal on the merits. The court must ask whether the panel made a material public law error, reached an unreasonable conclusion, or gave legally inadequate reasons. Appropriate respect is due to the panel’s assessment of evidence heard directly by it.

Reasons must address the substantial issues and enable the parties to understand the factual findings and identify any error of law. They need not rehearse every item of evidence. Police standards of honesty, integrity and discreditable conduct apply whether an officer is on or off duty, but the panel must evaluate the conduct in its factual and personal context.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of a Police Misconduct Panel’s decision concerning Officer M, a newly appointed police officer. The Panel found breaches arising from unauthorised computer access and dishonesty, amounting overall to gross misconduct, but found no breach of the professional standards in Officer M’s interactions with safeguarding professionals following a domestic incident involving her family.

The challenge concerned the Panel’s findings about Officer M’s belief as to the incident, its treatment of alleged downplaying and alleged racist comments, and the adequacy of its reasons. Permission had been granted on four interrelated grounds. The central issue was whether the Panel’s conclusions and reasoning involved a public law error.

1. Claim dismissed. The Panel’s decision and its outcome therefore stood.
2. Judicial review did not permit the Court to substitute its own findings of fact or judgment for those of the specialist three-person Panel. The relevant questions were whether the Panel made a material public law error, reached a conclusion unsupported or unsustainable on the evidence, or gave reasons which were inadequate, unintelligible or insufficient in context.
3. Applying the principles identified in R (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands [2001] All ER (D) 135, the Panel was not required to set out every item of evidence or explain every preference between witnesses. Its reasons had to address the substantial points and inform the parties how the principal issues had been resolved and whether an error of law had occurred.
4. The Panel was entitled to accept Officer M’s evidence that she genuinely believed her parents’ account of the incident, notwithstanding evidence which could support a contrary conclusion. The Panel had heard the recordings, oral evidence and cross-examination, and its finding was reasonably open to it.
5. The Panel was also entitled to find an element of downplaying, while evaluating whether that conduct crossed the threshold for breach of the professional standards in the circumstances. Officer M’s limited service, cultural and family context, and the evidence that she had not been rude, disrespectful or used her police position were relevant matters for the Panel’s judgment.
6. The standards concerning honesty and integrity and discreditable conduct applied whether the officer was on or off duty. That did not, however, require the Court to treat the Panel’s evaluative conclusion as unreasonable. The Panel’s reasons were legally adequate and its conclusions were coherent and reasonably sustainable.

• High Court (Administrative Court): permission for judicial review was granted on four grounds on 4 November 2021. The substantive claim was dismissed, and the Panel’s decision stood.