Richard Prior & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Entitlement to an away-from-home allowance under the Secretary of State’s Annex U determination depends on the objective meaning of its terms. Each version must be construed on its own wording. A later amendment said to clarify an earlier provision cannot be used to establish the earlier provision’s meaning merely because that was the Secretary of State’s intention. “Normal place of duty” means where an officer normally works in discharging the duties of the relevant role. For mobile protection officers, that place may change with the location of the principal or protected residence. Officers performing their normal protection duties are therefore not ordinarily serving away from their normal place of duty. From 2015, “routine enquiries” included activities forming part of the officer’s role or normal duties where the nature of those duties or the distance from the home station prevented return home.

Some 397 Royalty and Specialist Protection officers employed by the Metropolitan Police Service claimed away-from-home overnight and hardship allowances under Annex U to the Police Regulations 2003. After an 11-day trial, Kerr J dismissed the claims, holding that the officers were not “held in reserve” because they were not serving away from their normal places of duty. He also considered the meaning of “routine enquiries”.

The officers appealed on the construction of “normal place of duty” and “routine enquiries” in the 2012 and 2015 versions of Annex U. The central issue was whether their mobile protection duties placed them outside their normal places of duty and entitled them to the allowances.

Simler LJ delivered the leading judgment. King LJ and Bean LJ agreed. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Objective construction. The court, not the Secretary of State, determines the meaning of the statutory determination. Each version of Annex U had to be construed objectively and on its own terms. The Secretary of State’s subjective intention that the 2015 amendment was merely clarificatory could not be used to determine the meaning of the 2012 wording.
2. Normal place of duty. “Normal” did not mean permanent and was not used in opposition to “temporary” as those concepts appeared in other determinations. The phrase meant where the officer normally worked to discharge the duties of the relevant role or remit. The tax treatment of temporary workplaces under section 339 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 was irrelevant.
3. RASP officers. The national and international protection remit under section 96A of the Police Act 1996 made mobility inherent in the RASP role. For static protection officers, the normal place of duty was the protected palace or residence at which they were working. For close protection officers, it was determined by the location of the principal. The normal place could change as the officer moved. Officers performing their ordinary protection duties were therefore not “held in reserve” under paragraph 11(b) of Annex U. The court left open the possibility that urgent deployment outside the normal protection remit could produce a different result.
4. Routine enquiries. The court expressed no final view on the obscure 2012 phrase. The 2015 amendment made clear that the exception covered activities forming part of an officer’s role or normal duties where the nature of those duties or the distance from the home station prevented return home. The chief officer could determine the relevant role, duties and expectation of working away from home. On that basis, the RASP deployments relied on did not qualify for the allowances.
5. The Respondent’s Notice, including the meaning of “ready for immediate deployment”, did not require determination.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the decision of Kerr J was dismissed: [2023] EWCA Civ 32.
2. King’s Bench Division: After an 11-day trial, Kerr J dismissed the claims for away-from-home and hardship allowances, holding that the officers were not “held in reserve”: [2021] EWHC 2672 (QB), reported at [2022] ICR 398.