KSO & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors

The Police Regulations 2003 and the Secretary of State’s Determinations must be construed by ordinary statutory principles, read in their statutory and practical context.

A four-hour minimum for short recalls applies separately to each recall, subject to no double recovery. The 15-minute provisions calculate the allowance after the length of duty has been determined. A recall need not last a full day to trigger compensation for interrupted annual leave. An officer is “on call” where the substance of the role requires availability outside rostered duty, regardless of a rota.

Inspectors cannot claim compensatory leave for work arising unexpectedly on a rest day or public holiday. Failure to grant accrued additional leave within a reasonable period is actionable as breach of statutory duty.

The lead claimants were police officers who brought claims concerning pay, allowances and additional leave for out-of-hours work under the Police Regulations 2003 and the Secretary of State’s Determinations. KSO and KWS were constable CHIS handlers; KBS was an inspector and CHIS controller.

The litigation concerned recalls and requirements to do duty, four-hour minimum periods, completed periods of 15 minutes, inspectors’ leave entitlements, interrupted annual leave, on-call allowance, elections for payment in lieu, and evidential methods for quantifying claims.

The court determined the principal construction issues and gave guidance for resolving the wider claims.

1. Four-hour minimum. The four-hour minimum in Annex G paragraphs (1)(h)(iii) and (3)(f), and Annex H paragraph (3)(h), applies separately to each recall lasting less than four hours, including recalls occurring within four hours of one another. There must be no double recovery for overlapping periods (paras [124]-[155]).
2. Completed periods of 15 minutes. The four-hour deeming provisions determine the length of overtime or duty first. The applicable allowance is then calculated by reference to each completed 15-minute period (paras [162]-[184]).
3. Recalls of inspectors. Applying Allard, a recall is not confined to urgent CHIS communications. KBS was recalled when contacted out of hours about intelligence requiring dissemination or consequential action, or for CHIS-related operational, managerial or welfare matters requiring her attention (paras [190]-[197]).
4. Inspectors’ rest days and public holidays. Annex H paragraph (1)(g) applies where the exigencies of duty prevent the advance allowance of a public holiday or grant of a rest day. It does not confer compensatory leave or damages for work arising unexpectedly on the day itself. KBS’s claim under that provision therefore failed (paras [204]-[222]).
5. Additional leave. Failure to grant additional leave under Annex H paragraph (1)(d) or Annex O paragraph (5) within a reasonable period gives rise to an actionable claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. A six-year limitation period applied to the claims before the court (paras [241]-[264]).
6. Annual leave. Annex O paragraph (5) is triggered by a recall involving some duty on a qualifying day; a full day’s work is unnecessary. A recall outside paragraph (5) restores the interrupted primary annual-leave day, subject to carry-forward restrictions (paras [269]-[288]). The election for payment in lieu may be made while the chief officer remains able to grant the additional leave, including in pleadings while the officer remains in service (paras [289]-[300]).
7. Part-time officers and on-call allowance. Annex G paragraph (3)(m) does not extend the four-hour minimum to a pre-1 April 2012 recall that fails the paragraph (3)[x] threshold. For free-day work, the higher rate is avoided only if it was not reasonably practicable for another officer to perform the duty. “On call” means required availability to perform duties outside rostered tours, assessed by the substance of the role rather than rota designation (paras [307]-[324], [344]-[371]).
8. Quantification. Credible average frequencies and durations may quantify claims where records are incomplete, but defendants may challenge their reliability. KSO and KWS’s processing-time estimates were accepted, subject to rejection of KWS’s uplift; KBS’s claim was to be reformulated using telephone and system data with a modest percentage uplift (paras [382]-[408], [429]-[458]).