Ronald Philpot, R (on the application of) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

The Court of Appeal held that a prohibition on a serving police officer contacting the complainant in an internal misconduct investigation, although in the present case wrongly recorded as having been imposed under Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, could lawfully be imposed under the framework of the Police Regulations 2003 read with the chief officer's direction and control powers (PRSRA 2011 s.4(3)) and the Standards of Professional Behaviour. The court accepted that regulation 11 does not authorise restrictions on an officer's private life but concluded that regulation 6 of the Police Regulations 2003 limits the lawful scope of any restriction on private life and permits a restriction designed to secure the proper exercise of a constable's functions. The prohibition was also held to be proportionate for the purposes of Article 8 ECHR because it protected the complainant and the integrity of disciplinary proceedings and (as applied) had only a limited impact on the officer's private and family life.

Background and procedural posture.

• The appellant, PC Ronald Philpot, faced allegations by his wife of domestic abuse which gave rise to criminal investigation and later to a recordable conduct misconduct investigation by the Metropolitan Police. Following those allegations the appellant was placed on a number of restricted duties, including a prohibition on direct or indirect contact with his wife except where required by the family court or for child-care matters via a third party. The appellant applied for judicial review of that contact restriction.
• Permission to apply for judicial review was initially granted on the papers by Calver J. Lang J (Administrative Court) issued a reserved judgment ([2022] EWHC 1852 (Admin)) finding that the restriction had been imposed unlawfully insofar as it was said to have been made under Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, but she refused relief because she concluded the same restriction could lawfully have been imposed under other powers. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal with permission granted by Lang J.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. The claim was a judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the contact prohibition and seeking relief quashing the restriction and associated decisions.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 authorised a prohibition on contact with a complainant/witness.
• If not, whether the restriction could lawfully be imposed under other legal sources, in particular Regulation 6 of the Police Regulations 2003 read with the chief officer's control and direction powers in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the obligation to ensure compliance with the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
• Whether regulation 6(2) permits individual restrictions on a police officer's private life and, if so, the proper interpretation of the phrase "designed to secure the proper exercise of the functions of a constable."
• Whether the restriction was compatible with Article 8 ECHR, in particular whether it was in accordance with the law and proportionate.

Court’s reasoning and conclusion. The Court of Appeal agreed with Lang J that Regulation 11 does not authorise restrictions on an officer's private life and so cannot be the legal basis for the contact prohibition. However, the court accepted that the restriction could lawfully have been imposed under the combination of (a) the chief officer's direction and control powers (s.4(3) PRSRA 2011) and/or the duty to enforce the Standards of Professional Behaviour, read through the limiting provision in Regulation 6(2) of the Police Regulations 2003. The court explained that regulation 6(2) operates to limit the scope of any restriction affecting private life and that a restriction which is "designed to secure the proper exercise of the functions of a constable" may be imposed in an individual case. The contact prohibition was aimed at protecting the complainant and the integrity of disciplinary proceedings and, on the facts, was proportionate under Article 8. For these reasons the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Wider context noted by the court: the court recorded that prohibitions of this kind are relatively commonplace in policing practice and approved the use of such measures, when proportionate, to protect complainants and integrity of proceedings.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal agreed that Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 does not authorise a prohibition on contacting witnesses, but held that the same prohibition could lawfully have been imposed pursuant to the chief officer's direction and control powers together with Regulation 6 of the Police Regulations 2003 and the Standards of Professional Behaviour; the restriction was also proportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

Permission for judicial review was granted on the papers by Calver J. The case was heard in the Administrative Court by Lang J, who gave a reserved judgment on 19 July 2022 ([2022] EWHC 1852 (Admin)): she found the restriction had been purportedly imposed under Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (an error) but refused relief because the restriction could lawfully have been imposed under other powers. Lang J granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on 31 January 2023 ([2023] EWCA Civ 66).