THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS (R on the application of) v POLICE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

The court refused judicial review of the Police Appeals Tribunal's decision of 23 May 2021 to impose a Final Written Warning on Detective Constable Asweina Gutty. The key legal principles applied were the three-stage "structured approach" to sanction (assess seriousness by reference to culpability and harm, keep in mind the purpose of sanctions, select the least severe sanction that fulfils that purpose) as derived from Fuglers and reproduced in the College of Policing Guidance, and the limited supervisory role of the Administrative Court in review of specialist disciplinary decisions. The claimant advanced four public law grounds: failure to adopt the structured approach; inadequate assessment of the seriousness of the conviction and its effect on public confidence; over-reliance on medical evidence as determinative of the public interest; and taking into account Equality Act considerations. The court found that the PAT had applied the required structured approach in substance, legitimately took the medical evidence into account to reduce culpability and harm, did not rely upon the Equality Act to reach its sanction decision, and that its sanction fell within the range of reasonable responses. Accordingly the claim was dismissed.

Background and parties. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis sought judicial review of the Police Appeals Tribunal's (PAT) 23 May 2021 decision imposing a Final Written Warning on DC Asweina Gutty following gross misconduct findings arising from a conviction for assault by beating (section 39, Criminal Justice Act 1988). The Commissioner contended that the PAT should have imposed dismissal without notice. The PAT sat as the defendant; the officer and the Director General of the IOPC were interested parties.

Procedural history. DC Gutty pleaded guilty on 18 July 2018 to an assault committed on 27 May 2018. A Special Case Hearing (SCH) initially decided dismissal without notice (23 November 2018). The officer appealed successfully to the PAT, which ordered a rehearing on the basis of additional medical evidence (1 June 2020). A second SCH (28 August 2020) again imposed dismissal. That decision was appealed to the PAT, which allowed the appeal and re-determined sanction on 17 May 2021, issuing written reasons on 23 May 2021 and imposing a Final Written Warning. Permission for judicial review of the PAT decision was granted on 2 November 2021.

Nature of the claim and issues. The application was for judicial review of the PAT's sanctions decision. The Commissioner relied upon four public law grounds: (1) failure to adopt the structured approach to sanctioning; (2) inadequate assessment of the seriousness of the conviction and its effect on public confidence; (3) impermissible emphasis on medical evidence as determinative of the public interest; and (4) taking into account Equality Act considerations improperly.

Facts and evidence relevant to sanction. The officer had a long policing career and prior commendations but, following childhood trauma, experienced severe mental health difficulties (complex PTSD / Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder). A consultant psychiatrist (Dr Hindler) opined that the officer's condition caused mood changes, dissociation and impulsive outbursts and that these factors were likely to have contributed to the assault. The criminal court sentenced the officer to a community order and unpaid work; the criminal proceedings attracted national press coverage.

Court's reasoning and conclusions. The Administrative Court reviewed the PAT's reasons against the established case law (including Roscoe, Fuglers, Salter, Bolton, Williams) and the College of Policing Guidance. The court concluded that: the PAT had applied the three-stage structured approach in substance and had explicitly considered culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating features; the PAT had properly considered the conviction and its seriousness but permissibly gave significant weight to the medical evidence establishing reduced culpability and foreseeable harm; the PAT did not rely upon or decide Equality Act claims when imposing sanction and its references to equality considerations were advisory and separate; and given the PAT's specialist role and the limited supervisory remit of judicial review, the PAT's conclusion that a Final Written Warning met the threefold purpose of misconduct proceedings was within the range of reasonable responses. The court therefore dismissed the claim.

Contextual note. The judgment emphasises the court's limited supervisory role over specialist disciplinary tribunals, the requirement in most cases to demonstrate the structured approach in reasons, and that dismissal may be likely or "almost inevitable" in some categories of misconduct (notably operational dishonesty) but that convictions for violent offences require a fact-specific application of the structured approach.

The claim for judicial review is dismissed. The court held that the Police Appeals Tribunal had applied the required structured approach in substance, properly assessed culpability and harm (including legitimate weight to medical evidence reducing culpability), did not rely upon the Equality Act to reach its sanction decision, and reached a sanction (Final Written Warning) that was within the range of reasonable responses. The Administrative Court therefore found no public law error requiring quashing or substitution.

The disciplinary process began with a Special Case Hearing (SCH) which imposed dismissal without notice on 23 November 2018. The officer appealed to the Police Appeals Tribunal which allowed the appeal and ordered a rehearing on 1 June 2020 in light of medical evidence. A second SCH on 28 August 2020 again imposed dismissal. The officer appealed; the PAT allowed the appeal and re-took the sanction decision on 17 May 2021 (written reasons dated 23 May 2021), imposing a Final Written Warning. Permission for judicial review was granted on 2 November 2021 and the judicial review was heard in this court, which dismissed the claim on 26 July 2022.