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

A police misconduct decision-maker must assess seriousness through culpability, harm, aggravating features and mitigating factors, then consider the purposes of sanction and select a proportionate outcome. A criminal conviction by a serving officer is extremely serious, but dismissal is not automatically or almost inevitably required. That stricter approach applies to operational dishonesty, whereas convictions require a fact-specific assessment. Personal mitigation must be considered, although its weight is usually limited where misconduct threatens public confidence. Evidence about the effect of dismissal on community confidence may be relevant. On judicial review, the court must respect the specialist tribunal’s evaluative judgment and intervene only for public law error or irrationality.

The Commissioner challenged the Police Appeals Tribunal’s decision of 22 June 2021. The PAT had allowed Superintendent Robyn Williams’s appeal against dismissal following her conviction for possessing an indecent image of a child and substituted an 18-month final written warning.

The Commissioner alleged that the PAT had failed to apply the structured approach to sanction, mishandled seriousness, personal mitigation and the sentencing judge’s comments, and considered irrelevant matters. The central issues were whether the PAT had made an error of law and whether its sanction was outside the range of reasonable responses.

1. Structured approach. The PAT had correctly adopted the three-stage approach: assess seriousness; consider the purposes of sanctions; and select the sanction that best fulfils those purposes. Its reasoning substantially addressed culpability, harm, aggravating features and mitigation. A decision-maker need not reproduce every passage of the College of Policing Guidance if the correct approach is applied in substance.
2. Seriousness of the conviction. The conviction and sex-offender registration were recognised as extremely serious. The PAT had considered the circumstances of the offence, the jury’s rejection of the officer’s account and the impact on public confidence. Any lack of detailed reasoning about harm did not establish an error of law. Alternatively, it was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same, engaging section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
3. Operational dishonesty distinguished. The law distinguishes operational dishonesty, for which dismissal is almost inevitable save in a very small residual category, from other criminal convictions. A conviction may cover a wide range of circumstances, so the appropriate sanction requires a fact-specific structured assessment. Dismissal is likely in serious cases, but is not an automatic consequence.
4. Dishonesty and mitigation. The PAT was entitled to treat the rejected defence as an aggravating feature, while declining to treat uncharged dishonesty as additional misconduct and giving limited weight to the sentencing comments. It was also entitled to consider testimonials and evidence that dismissal might reduce community confidence, provided it maintained the primacy of public confidence and the public interest.
5. Judicial review and outcome. The Commissioner’s complaints were disagreements with the PAT’s specialist evaluation. The PAT’s conclusion that this was an exceptional case in which dismissal was not necessary or proportionate was legally permissible. The claim was dismissed.

The claim was a judicial review of the Police Appeals Tribunal’s decision dated 22 June 2021. The PAT had substituted an 18-month final written warning for dismissal without notice. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim.